TD 899 HA United States 

Environmental Protection 

. M5 R37 J g^\ Agency 

2006 

c ° p v 2 Active and Semi-Passive 
ft heade Lime Treatment of Acid Mine 

GenCol1 

Drainage at Leviathan Mine, 
California 


Innovative Technology 
Evaluation Report 


























EPA/540/R-05/015 
March 2006 


Active and Semi-Passive 
Lime Treatment of Acid Mine 
Drainage at Leviathan Mine, California 


Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 



National Risk Management Research Laboratory 
Office of Research and Development 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 



Recycled/Recyclable 

Printed with vegetable-based ink on 
paper that contains a minimum ot 
50% post-consumer fiber content 
processed chlorine free. 



tD&^ 

QGQls 

n* 


Notice 


The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-C-00-181 to Tetra Tech EM, Inc. It has been subject 
to the Agency’s peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA 
document. Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or 
recommendation for use. 


11 



Foreword 


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s land, 
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate 
and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural 
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is providing data and 
technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base 
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and 
prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation of 
technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten 
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on methods and their 
cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; 
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground 
water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates 
with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to 
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides solutions to environmental problems by: 
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and 
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and 
information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, 
state, and community levels. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. It is 
published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the user community 
and to link researchers with their clients. 


Sally C. Gutierrez, Director 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 


ill 



Abstract 


As part of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), in cooperation with EPA 
Region IX, the state of California, and the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) evaluated lime treatment of 
acid mine drainage (AMD) and acid rock drainage (ARD) at the Leviathan Mine Superfund site located in 
Alpine County, California. EPA evaluated two lime treatment systems in operation at the mine in 2002 and 
2003: an active lime treatment system operated in biphasic and monophasic modes, and a semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system. The treatment systems utilize the same chemistry to treat AMD generated 
within the mine workings and ARD generated from surface seeps within waste rock; the addition of lime to 
neutralize acidity and remove toxic levels of metals by precipitation. The primary metals of concern in the 
AMD and ARD include aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, and nickel; secondary water quality indicator 
metals include cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, and zinc. 

The technology evaluation occurred between June 2002 and October 2003, during the operation of both the 
active lime treatment system (in biphasic and monophasic modes) and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon 
treatment system. The evaluation consisted of multiple sampling events of each treatment system during 
6 months of operation separated by winter shutdown. Throughout the evaluations, EPA collected metals 
data on each system’s influent and effluent streams, documented metals removal and reduction in acidity 
within each system’s unit operations, and recorded operational information pertinent to the evaluation of 
each treatment system. EPA evaluated the treatment systems independently, based on removal efficiencies 
for primary and secondary target metals, comparison of effluent concentrations to discharge standards 
mandated by EPA in 2002, and on the characteristics of resulting metals-laden solid wastes. Removal 
efficiencies of individual unit operations were also evaluated. 

Both treatment systems were shown to be extremely effective at neutralizing acidity and reducing the 
concentrations of the 10 target metals in the AMD and ARD flows at Leviathan Mine to below EPA 
discharge standards. Although the influent concentrations for the primary target metals were up to 3,000 
fold above the EPA discharge standards, both lime treatment systems were successful in reducing the 
concentrations of the primary target metals in the AMD and ARD to between 4 and 20 fold below EPA 
discharge standards. In general, removal efficiencies for the five primary target metals exceeded 95 percent. 
In addition, the active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode was shown to be very effective at 
separating arsenic from the AMD prior to precipitation of other metals, subsequently reducing the total 
volume of hazardous solid waste produced by the treatment system. Separating the arsenic into a smaller 
solid waste stream significantly reduces materials handling and disposal costs. 

Based on the success of lime treatment at the Leviathan Mine site, the state of California will continue to 
treat AMD at the site using the active lime treatment system in biphasic mode and ARCO will continue to 
treat ARD using the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system. 


IV 



Contents 


Notice .ii 

Foreword.iii 

Abstract.iv 

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols.ix 

Conversion Factors.xi 

Acknowledgements.xii 

Section 1 Introduction.1 

1.1 Project Background.1 

1.2 The Site Demonstration Program and Reports.1 

1.3 Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report.3 

1.4 Technology Description.3 

1.5 Key Findings.4 

1.6 Key Contacts.8 

Section 2 Technology Effectiveness.11 

2.1 Background.11 

2.1.1 Site Description.11 

2.1.2 History of Contaminant Release.13 

2.1.3 Previous Actions.13 

2.2 Process Description.13 

2.2.1 Active Lime Treatment System.14 

2.2.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.15 

2.3 Evaluation Approach.15 

2.3.1 Project Objectives.15 

2.3.2 Sampling Program.16 

2.4 Field Evaluation Activities.17 

2.4.1 Mobilization Activities.17 

2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance Activities.17 

2.4.2.1 Active Lime Treatment System.17 

2.4.2.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.18 

2.4.3 Process Modifications.18 

2.4.3.1 Active Lime Treatment System.18 

2.4.3.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.19 

0 

2.4.4 Evaluation Monitoring Activities.19 

2.4.4.1 Active Lime Treatment System.19 

2.4.4.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.19 

2.4.5 Demobilization Activities.20 

2.4.6 Lessons Learned.20 

2.5 Technology Evaluation Results.21 

2.5.1 Primary Objective No. 1: Evaluation of Metals Removal Efficiencies.21 

2.5.2 Primary Objective No.2: Comparison of Effluent Data to Discharge Standards.. 23 


v 












































Contents (continued) 


2.5.3 Secondary Objectives for Evaluation of Active Lime Treatment System Unit 

Operations.25 

2.5.3.1 Operating Conditions.26 

2.5.3.2 Reaction Chemistry.27 

2.5.3.3 Metals Removal By Unit Operation.29 

2.5.3.4 Solids Separation.31 

2.5.4 Secondary Objectives for Evaluation of Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment 

System Unit Operations.32 

2.5.4.1 Operating Conditions.32 

2.5.4.2 Reaction Chemistry.33 

2.5.4.3 Metals Removal By Unit Operation.34 

2.5.4.4 Solids Separation.35 

2.5.5 Evaluation of Solids Handling and Disposal.36 

2.5.5.1 Waste Characterization and Handling Requirements.36 

2.5.5.2 Active Lime Treatment System.36 

2.5.5.3 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.38 

Section 3 Technology Applications Analysis.39 

3.1 Key Features.39 

3.2 Applicable Wastes .39 

3.3 Factors Affecting Performance.40 

3.4 Technology Limitations. 40 

3.5 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics.41 

3 .6 Personnel Requirements.41 

3.7 Materials Handling Requirements.42 

3.8 Permit Requirements .42 

3.9 Community Acceptance.42 

3.10 Availability, Adaptability, and Transportability of Equipment.43 

3.11 Ability to Attain ARARs.43 

3.11.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.44 

3.11.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.44 

3.11.3 Clean Air Act.46 

3.11.4 Clean Water Act.46 

3.11.5 Safe Drinking Water Act.46 

3.11 .6 Occupational Safety and Health Act.46 

3.11.7 State Requirements. 47 

3.12 Technology Applicability To Other Sites. 47 

Section 4 Economic Analysis. 49 

4.1 Introduction. 49 

4.2 Cost Summary. 49 

4.3 Factors Affecting Cost Elements.50 

4.4 Issues and Assumptions.50 

4.5 Cost Elements. 51 

4.5.1 Site Preparation. 51 

4.5.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements.51 

4.5.3 Capital Equipment. 51 

4.5.4 Startup and Fixed Costs. 53 

4.5.5 Consumables and Supplies. 53 

4.5.6 Labor. 53 

4.5.7 Utilities. 54 

4.5.8 Residual Waste Shipping, Handling, and Disposal. 54 

4.5.9 Analytical Services. 54 


VI 





















































Contents (continued) 


4.5.10 Maintenance and Modifications.54 

4.5.11 Demobilization.55 

Sections Data Quality Review.56 

5.1 Deviations From TEP/QAPP.56 

5.2 Summary of Data Evaluation and PARCC Criteria Evaluation.57 

Section 6 Technology Status.59 

References.60 

Appendix A Sample Collection And Analysis Tables.61 

Appendix B Data Used To Evaluate Project Primary Objectives.71 

Appendix C Detailed Cost Element Spreadsheets.83 


Tables 


Table_Page 


1-1 Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Biphasic Operation in 2002 and 2003.9 

1-2 Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Monophasic Operation in 2003 .9 

1-3 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Removal Efficiencies in 2002.9 

1- 4 Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine.10 

2- 1 Summary' of Historical Metals of Concern.14 

2-2 2002 and 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation.... 22 

2-3 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation.22 

2-4 2002 Removal Efficiencies for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.23 

2-5 EPA Project Discharge Standards.23 

2-6 Results of the Student’s-t Test Statistical Analysis for Maximum Daily Effluent Data.24 

2-7 Results of the Student’s-t Test Statistical Analysis for 4-Day Average Effluent Data.25 

2-8 Biphasic Unit Operation Parameters.26 

2-9 Monophasic Unit Operation Parameters.27 

2-10 Biphasic Phase I Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry.28 

2-11 Biphasic Phase II Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry.29 

2-12 Monophasic Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry.30 

2-13 Biphasic Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies.30 

2-14 Monophasic Unit Operation Removal Efficiencies.31 

2-15 Biphasic Phase I and Phase II Solids Separation Efficiencies.32 

2-16 Monophasic Solids Separation Efficiencies.33 

2-17 Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Parameters.33 

2-18 Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry.34 

2-19 Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies.35 

2-20 Alkaline Lagoon Solids Separation Efficiencies.35 

2-21 Active Lime Treatment System Waste Characterization.37 

2- 22 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Waste Characterization.38 

3- 1 Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine.43 

3-2 Federal Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Both Lime Treatment Systems ....45 

3- 3 Feasibility Study Criteria Evaluation for Both Lime Treatment Systems at Leviathan Mine.48 

4- 1 Summary of Total and Variable Costs for Each Treatment System.50 

4-2 Summary of Cost Elements for the Active Lime Treatment System.52 

4-3 Summary of Cost Elements for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System.52 


vii 












































Figures 


Figure_Page 

1-1 Site Location Map.2 

1 -2 Active Lime Treatment System Monophasic Schematic.5 

1 -3 Active Lime Treatment System Biphasic Schematic.6 

1- 4 Semi-passive Lagoon Treatment System Schematic.7 

2- 1 Site Layout.12 


viii 









Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols 


Mg/L 

(imhos/cm 

°C 

Microgram per liter 

Micromhos per centimeter 

Degree Celsius 

ACQR 

AMD 

AQMD 

ARAR 

ARCO 

ARD 

Air quality control region 

Acid mine drainage 

Air quality management district 

Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 

Atlantic Richfield Company 

Acid rock drainage 

CAA 

CERCLA 

CFR 

CRDL 

CUD 

CWA 

Clean Air Act 

Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
Code of Federal Regulations 

Contract required detection limit 

Channel under drain 

Clean Water Act 

DI 

DO 

DOT 

Deionized water 

Dissolved oxygen 

Department of Transportation 

EE/CA 

EPA 

Engineering evaluation cost analysis 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

g/L 

Gram per liter 

HDPE 

HRT 

High density polyethylene 

Hydraulic residence time 

ICP 

ITER 

Inductively coupled plasma 

Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 

kg 

kg/day 

kW 

Kilogram 

Kilogram per day 

Kilowatt 

L/min 

Liter per minute 

MCL 

MCLG 

Maximum contaminant level 

Maximum contaminant level goal 


IX 



Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (continued) 


MD 

mg/kg 

mg/L 

mL 

mL/min 

MS 

mV 

Matrix duplicate 

Milligram per kilogram 

Milligrams per liter 

Milliliter 

Milliliter per minute 

Matrix spike 

Millivolt 

NCP 

NPDES 

NRMRL 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 
National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

ORP 

OSHA 

Oxidation reduction potential 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PARCC 

pH 

POTW 

PPE 

PQL 

PUD 

Precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability 
Negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration 

Publicly-owned treatment works 

Personal protection equipment 

Practical quantitation limit 

Pit under drain 

QA/QC 

Quality assurance/quality control 

RCRA 

RPD 

rpm 

RWQCB 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Relative percent difference 

Revolution per minute 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan Region 

SARA 

SCADA 

SDG 

SDWA 

SITE 

SPLP 

STLC 

Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

Sample delivery group 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 

Synthetic precipitation and leaching procedure 

Soluble threshold limit concentration 

TCLP 

TDS 

TEP/QAPP 
Tetra Tech 
TOM 

TSD 

TSS 

TTLC 

Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 

Total dissolved solids 

Technology Evaluation Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

Task order manager 

Treatment, storage, and disposal 

Total suspended solids 

Total threshold limit concentration 

USACE 

US Army Corp of Engineers 

WET 

Waste extraction test 


X 



Conversion Factors 


To Convert From 


Length: 

Centimeter 

Meter 

Kilometer 

Area: 

Square Meter 

Volume: 

Liter 

Cubic Meter 
Cubic Meter 

Mass: 

Kilogram 
Metric Ton 

Energy: 

Kilowatt-hour 

Power: 

Kilowatt 

Temperature: 

°Celsius 


To 

Multiply By 

Inch 

0.3937 

Foot 

3.281 

Mile 

0.6214 

Square Foot 

10.76 

Gallon 

0.2642 

Cubic Foot 

35.31 

Cubic Yard 

1.308 

Pound 

2.2046 

Short Ton 

1.1025 

British Thermal Unit 

3413 

Horsepower 

1.34 

(°Fahrenheit + 32) 

1.8 


XI 



Acknowledgements 


This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Edward Bates, the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) project manager at the National Risk 
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio; and Mr. Kevin Mayer, EPA Region IX. 
This report was prepared by Mr. Matt Udell, Mr. Neal Hutchison, Mr. Noel Shrum, and Mr. Matt Wetter of 
Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech) under Field Evaluation and Technical Support (FEATS) Contract No. 68- 
C-00-181. Field sampling and data acquisition was performed by Mr. Udell and Mr. Joel Bauman of Tetra 
Tech. 

This project consisted of the demonstration of two innovative technologies under the SITE program to 
evaluate the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system developed by Atlantic Richfield Company 
(ARCO) and the active lime treatment system developed by Unipure Environmental. The technology 
demonstrations were conducted on acid mine and acid rock drainage at the Leviathan Mine Superfund site 
in Alpine County, California. Both technologies are currently being used as interim actions at the site, 
pending completion of a remedial investigation, feasibility study, and record of decision. This Innovative 
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) interprets the data that were collected during the two-year 
demonstration period and discusses the potential applicability of each technology to other mine sites. 

The cooperation and participation of the following people are gratefully acknowledged: Mr. Scott Jacobs of 
NRMRL, Mr. Chris Stetler and Mr. Doug Carey of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board- 
Lahontan Region, Mr. Dan Ferriter of ARCO, Mr. Andy Slavik of Unipure Environmental, and 
Ms. Monika Johnson of EMC 2 . 


xii 



SECTION 1 
INTRODUCTION 


This section provides background information about the 
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program 
and the SITE demonstration that was conducted at an 
abandoned mine site in Alpine County, California, discusses 
the purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 
(ITER), and briefly describes the technology that was 
evaluated. Key contacts are listed at the end of this section for 
inquiries regarding additional information about the SITE 
Program, the evaluated technology, and the demonstration 
site. 

1.1 Project Background 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the states, 
and the Federal Land Management Agencies all need better 
tools to manage acid mine drainage (AMD) and acid rock 
drainage (ARD) at abandoned mine sites. Over a 12-month 
period during 2002 and 2003, EPA evaluated the use of lime 
for removal of high concentrations of metals from AMD and 
ARD generated at an abandoned mine site, Leviathan Mine, 
located northwest of Monitor Pass in northeastern Alpine 
County, California (see Figure 1-1). The lime treatment SITE 
demonstration was conducted by EPA under the SITE 
Program, which is administered by EPA's National Risk 
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Office of 
Research and Development. The SITE demonstration was 
conducted by EPA in cooperation with EPA Region IX, the 
state of California, and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). 

The lime treatment systems in operation at Leviathan Mine 
include an active lime treatment system installed by the state 
of California in 1999, and a semi-passive lagoon treatment 
system installed by ARCO in 2001. The lime treatment 
systems were specifically designed to treat high flow rates of 
AMD and ARD containing thousands of milligrams per liter 
(mg/L) of metals at a pH as low as 2.0. Without treatment, the 
AMD and ARD from the mine would otherwise be released to 
the environment. The SITE demonstration consisted of 
multiple sampling events of each treatment system during 
6 months of operation separated by winter shutdown. 


Throughout the SITE demonstration, EPA collected metals 
data on each system’s influent and effluent streams, 
documented metals removal and reduction in acidity within 
each system’s unit operations, and recorded operational 
information pertinent to the evaluation of each treatment 
system. EPA evaluated the treatment systems independently, 
based on removal efficiencies for primary and secondary 
target metals, comparison of effluent concentrations to 
discharge standards mandated by EPA in 2002, and on the 
characteristics of resulting metals-laden solid wastes. 
Removal efficiencies of individual unit operations were also 
evaluated. A summary of the SITE demonstration and the 
results of the lime treatment technology evaluation are 
presented in Sections 2 through 5 of this report. 

1.2 The SITE Demonstration Program and 
Reports 

In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA), also known as Superfund. CERCLA is 
committed to protecting human health and the environment 
from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. In 1986, CERCLA 
was amended by the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act (SARA). These amendments emphasize 
the achievement of long-term effectiveness and permanence of 
remedies at Superfund sites. SARA mandates the use of 
permanent solutions, alternative treatment technologies, or 
resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent 
possible, to clean up hazardous waste sites. 

State and Federal agencies, as well as private parties, have for 
several years now been exploring the growing number of 
innovative technologies for treating hazardous wastes. EPA 
has focused on policy, technical, and informational issues 
related to the exploring and applying new remediation 
technologies applicable to Superfund sites. One such 
initiative is EPA’s SITE Program, which was established to 
accelerate the development, demonstration, and use of 
innovative technologies for site cleanups. The SITE 


1 





South C>\ 
Lake 1 

Tahoe % 1 


Markleeville 


Monitor/ 


Site Location 


Scale 1" = 5 miles 


Lake 

Tahoe 


Study Area 


Figure 1-1. Site Location Map 


2 












Program's primary purpose is to maximize the use of 
alternatives in cleaning hazardous waste sites by encouraging 
the development and demonstration of new, innovative 
treatment and monitoring technologies. It consists of three 
major elements: the Demonstration Program, the Consortium 
for Site Characterization Technologies, and the Technology 
Transfer Program. 

The objective of the Demonstration Program is to develop 
reliable performance and cost data on innovative technologies 
so that potential users can assess the technology’s site-specific 
applicability. Technologies evaluated are either available 
commercially or are close to being available for full-scale 
remediation of Superfund sites. SITE demonstrations usually 
are conducted at hazardous waste sites under conditions that 
closely simulate full-scale remediation conditions, thus 
assuring the usefulness and reliability of the information 
collected. Data collected are used to assess: (1) the 
performance of the technology; (2) the potential need for pre- 
and post treatment of wastes; (3) potential operating problems; 
and (4) the approximate costs. The demonstration also 
provides opportunities to evaluate the long term risks and 
limitations of a technology. 

At the conclusion of a SITE demonstration, EPA prepares a 
Demonstration Bulletin, Technology Capsule, and an ITER. 
These reports evaluate all available information on the 
technology and analyze its overall applicability to other 
potential sites characteristics, waste types, and waste matrices. 
Testing procedures, performance and cost data, and quality 
assurance and quality standards are also presented. The 
Technology Bulletin consists of a one to two page summary of 
the SITE demonstration and is prepared as a mailer for public 
notice. The Technology Bulletin provides a general overview 
of the technology demonstrated, results of the demonstration, 
and telephone numbers and e-mail address for the EPA project 
manager in charge of the SITE evaluation. In addition, 
references to other related documents and reports are 
provided. The Technology Capsule consists of a more in- 
depth summary of the SITE demonstration and is usually 
about 10 pages in length. The Technology Capsule presents 
information and summary data on various aspects of the 
technology including applicability, site requirements, 
performance, process residuals, limitations, and current status 
of the technology. The Technology Capsule is designed to 
help EPA remedial project managers and on-scene 
coordinators, contractors, and other site cleanup managers 
understand the types of data and site characteristics needed to 
effectively evaluate the technology's applicability for cleaning 
Superfund sites. The final SITE document produced is the 
ITER. The ITER consists of an in-depth evaluation of the 
SITE demonstration including details on field activities and 
operations, performance data and statistical evaluations, 
economic analysis, applicability, and effectiveness, as 
discussed in the following section. 


1.3 Purpose of the Innovative Technology 
Evaluation Report 

The ITER is designed to aid decision-makers in evaluating 
specific technologies for further consideration as applicable 
options in a particular cleanup operation. The ITER should 
include a comprehensive description of the SITE 
demonstration and its results, and is intended for use by EPA 
remedial project managers, EPA on-scene coordinators, 
contractors, and other decision-makers carrying out specific 
remedial actions. 

To encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies, 
EPA provides information regarding the applicability of each 
technology to specific sites and wastes. The ITER includes 
information on cost and desirable site-specific characteristics. 
It also discusses advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of 
the technology. However, each SITE demonstration evaluates 
the performance of a technology in treating a specific waste 
matrix at a specific site. The characteristics of other wastes 
and other sites may differ from the characteristics at the 
demonstration site. Therefore, a successful field 
demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily 
ensure that it will be applicable at other sites. Data from the 
field demonstration may require extrapolation for estimating 
the operating ranges in which the technology will perform 
satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be drawn from a 
single field demonstration. 

This ITER provides information on new approaches to the use 
of lime addition to reduce the concentration of toxic metals 
and acidity in AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine, and is a 
critical step in the development and commercialization of lime 
treatment for use at other applicable mine sites. 

1.4 Technology Description 

Lime treatment of AMD and ARD is a relatively simple 
chemical process where low pH AMD/ARD is neutralized 
using lime to precipitate dissolved iron, the main component 
of AMD and ARD, and other dissolved metals as metal 
hydroxides and oxy-hydroxides. In the active lime treatment 
system, the precipitation process is either performed in a 
single stage (monophasic mode), or two stages (biphasic 
mode). In the monophasic mode, the pH of the acid mine flow 
is raised to precipitate out all of the target metals resulting in a 
large quantity of metals-laden sludge. The precipitation 
occurs under the following reaction: 

Ca(OH) 2 (s) + Me 2+ /Me 3+ (aq) + H 2 S0 4 -> 
Me(OH) 2 /Me(OH) 3(S ) + CaS0 4 (s) + H 2 0 (1) 

Where Me 2 7Me ? * = dissolved metal ion in either a 

+2 or +3 valence state 


3 



The optimum pH range for this precipitation reaction is 
between 7.9 and 8.2. Along with metal hydroxides, excess 
sulfate in the AMD and ARD precipitates with excess calcium 
as calcium sulfate (gypsum). However, because sulfate 
removal is not a goal of the process, the treatment system is 
optimized for metals removal, leaving excess sulfate in 
solution. The active lime treatment system consists of 
reaction tanks, flash/floc mixing tanks, plate clarifiers, and a 
filter press. The active lime treatment system operated in 
monophasic mode w r as used at Leviathan Mine to treat a 
mixture of AMD and ARD with varying concentrations of 
arsenic. The monophasic configuration of the active lime 
treatment system is shown in Figure 1-2. 

The active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode is 
preferred at Leviathan Mine for treating AMD where 
concentrations of arsenic are high enough to yield a solid 
waste stream requiring handling as a hazardous waste. In this 
case, the active lime treatment system generates a small 
quantity of precipitate during the first reaction (Phase I) that 
contains high arsenic concentrations. A large quantity of low- 
arsenic content precipitate is generated during the second 
reaction (Phase II). Separating the arsenic into a smaller solid 
waste stream significantly reduces the cost of disposal. 

During Phase I, lime is added to raise the pH high enough to 
generate a ferric iron hydroxide precipitate, while leaving the 
majority of other metals in solution. 

3Ca(OH): (s) + 2Fe 3+ (aq) -» 3Ca 2 * w + 2Fe(OH) 3w (2) 

The optimum pH range for this precipitation reaction is 
between 2.8 and 3.0. During precipitation, a large portion of 
the arsenic adsorbs to the ferric hydroxide precipitate. The 
solution pH remains nearly constant in this zone as long as 
excess soluble iron is available to buffer the addition of lime. 
Given enough reaction time, it is in this zone (pH 2.8 to 3.0) 
that maximum arsenic removal occurs. The small quantity of 
iron and arsenic rich precipitate generated is dewatered using 
a filter press. After dewatering, the small amount of Phase I 
filter cake generated typically exhibits hazardous 
characteristics due to the high concentration of arsenic and is 
shipped off site for disposal at a treatment, storage, and 
disposal (TSD) facility. 

In Phase II of the biphasic process, the pH is further raised 
through lime addition to precipitate out the remaining target 
metals forming a large quantity of Phase II sludge, as 
described in Reaction (1) above. Again, the optimum pH 
range for the second precipitation reaction is between 7.9 and 
8.2. The Phase II sludge typically does not exhibit hazardous 
waste characteristics because the majority of the arsenic was 
removed in Phase I. The Phase II pit clarifier sludge is 
typically disposed of on site. The biphasic configuration of 
the active lime treatment system utilizes the same equipment 
as the monophasic configuration, though operated in a two- 


step process, and includes the addition of an extended settling 
pit clarifier, as shown in Figure 1-3. 

The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system is a 
continuous flow lime contact system, also designed for metal 
hydroxide precipitation. This system was designed to treat the 
ARD at Leviathan Mine, which has low arsenic content. The 
system consists of air sparge/lime contact tanks where initial 
precipitation occurs, and bag filters that capture approximately 
60 percent of the precipitate. The system relies on iron 
oxidation during mechanical aeration, optimization of lime 
dosage, and adequate cake thickness within each bag filter to 
filter precipitate from the treated ARD. The system also 
includes a multi-cell settling lagoon for extended lime contact 
and final precipitation of metal hydroxides. Bag filter solids 
are typically disposed of on site. The reaction chemistry is the 
same as the active lime treatment system operated in 
monophasic mode, as described in Reaction (1). A process 
flow diagram for the alkaline lagoon lime treatment system is 
presented in Figure 1-4. 

1.5 Key Findings 

Both lime treatment systems were shown to be extremely 
effective at neutralizing acidity and reducing the 
concentrations of the 10 target metals in the AMD and ARD 
flows at Leviathan Mine to below EPA discharge standards. 
The active lime treatment system treated 28.3 million liters of 
AMD operating in the biphasic mode using 125 dry tons of 
lime; and 17.4 million liters of combined AMD and ARD 
operating in monophasic mode using 23.8 dry tons of lime. 
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system treated 
12.3 million liters of ARD using 19.4 dry tons of lime. The 
active lime treatment system operated in Biphasic mode was 
shown to be very effective at separating arsenic from the 
AMD prior to precipitation of other metals, subsequently 
reducing the total volume of hazardous solid waste produced 
by the treatment system. Separating the arsenic into a smaller 
solid waste stream significantly reduces materials handling 
and disposal costs. 

Although the influent concentrations for the primary target 
metals were up to 3,000 fold above the EPA discharge 
standards, both lime treatment systems were successful in 
reducing the concentrations of the primary target metals in the 
AMD and ARD to between 4 and 20 fold below the discharge 
standards. For both modes of the active lime treatment 
system, the average removal efficiency for the primary target 
metals was 99.6 percent over 20 sampling events, with the 
exception of lead at 74.6 to 78.3 percent removal. For the 
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system, the average 
removal efficiency for the primary target metals in the ARD 
was 99.2 percent over eight sampling events, w'ith the 
exception of lead at 66.4 percent removal and copper at 58.3 
percent removal. Removal efficiencies for lead and copper 
were less than other metals because the influent concentrations 
of these two metals were already near or below the EPA 


4 



Upper Leviathan Creek 
(feed water) 


dJ 

w 

AJ 

_C 





o 


A3 

on 

O 

Q. 



5 


FIGURE 1-2. ACTIVE LIME TREATMENT SYSTEM MONOPHASIC SCHEMATIC 



























































































Upper Leviathan Creek Phase I I Phase II 

(feed water) 



6 


FIGURE 1-3 ACTIVE LIME TREATMENT SYSTEM BIPHASIC SCHEMATIC 














































































































Channel Underdrain 


K* MK «* 


%s r» m> 



7 


FIGURE 1^*. SEMI-PASSIVE ALKALINE LAGOON TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC 



















































discharge standards and the systems were not optimized for 
removal of these metals at such low concentrations. In the 
case of selenium in the AMD flow and selenium and cadmium 
in the ARD flow, removal efficiencies were not calculated 
because the influent and effluent metals concentrations were 
not statistically different. 

The average and range of removal efficiencies for filtered 
influent and effluent samples collected from each lime 
treatment system during the evaluation period are presented in 
Tables 1-1 through 1-3. A summary of the average influent 
and effluent metals concentrations for each lime treatment 
system is also presented. The results of a comparison of the 
average effluent concentration for each metal to the EPA 
discharge standards is also presented; where a “Y” indicates 
that either the maximum concentration (based on a daily 
composite of three grab samples) and/or the average 
concentration (based on a running average of four daily 
composite samples) was exceeded; and an “N” indicates that 
neither discharge standard w'as exceeded. 

The lime treatment process produced a large quantity of metal 
hydroxide sludge and filter cake. During operation in biphasic 
mode in 2002 and 2003, the active lime treatment system 
produced 43.8 dry tons of Phase I filter cake consisting mainly 
of iron and arsenic hydroxides and 211.6 dry tons of Phase II 
sludge consisting of metal hydroxides high in iron, aluminum, 
copper, nickel, and zinc. In addition, gypsum is also a 
component of the Phase II sludge. During operation in 
monophasic mode in 2002, the active lime treatment system 
produced 20.4 dry tons of filter cake consisting of metal 
hydroxides and gypsum. The semi-passive alkaline lagoon 
treatment system produced 12.6 dry tons of sludge consisting 
of metal hydroxides and gypsum. The solid waste residuals 
produced by the treatment systems were analyzed for 
hazardous waste characteristics. Total metals and leachable 
metals analyses were performed on the solid wastes for 
comparison to California and Federal hazardous waste 
classification criteria. The hazardous waste characteristics 
determined for the solid waste streams are presented in 
Table 1-4. The solid waste streams that were determined to be 
hazardous or a threat to water quality were transported to an 
off site TSD facility for disposal. Solid waste streams that 
passed both state and Federal hazardous waste criteria were 
disposed of in the mine pit. 


1.6 Key Contacts 

Additional information on this technology, the SITE Program, 
and the evaluation site can be obtained from the following 
sources: 

EPA Contacts: 

Edward Bates, EPA Project Manager 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
National Risk Management Research Laboratory 
Office of Research and Development 
26 West Martin Luther King Jr. Drive 
Cincinnati. OH 45268 
(513) 569-7774 
bates.edward@epa.gov 

Kevin Mayer, EPA Remedial Project Manager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street, SFD-7-2 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 972-3176 

maver.kevin@epa.gov 

Atlantic Richfield Contact: 

Mr. Roy Thun, Project Manager 
BP Atlantic Richfield Company 
6 Centerpointe Drive, Room 6-164 
La Palma, CA 90623 
(661) 287-3855 
thunril@bp.com 

State of California Contact: 

Richard Booth, Project Manager 
California Regional Water Quality Control Board 
Lahontan Region 
2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 
(530) 542-5474 
RBooth@waterboards.ca.gov 


8 







Table 1-1. Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Biphasic Operation in 2002 and 2003 


Target 

Metal 

Number of 
Sampling 
Events 

Average 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Mg^) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Average 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Pg /L ) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Exceeds 

Discharge 

Standards 

(Y/N) 

Average 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) ‘ 

Range of 
Removal 
Efficiencies 

m 

Primary Tar 

;et Metals 

Aluminum 

12/1 

381,000 

48,792 

1,118 

782 

N 

99.7 

99.2 to 99.9 

Arsenic 

12/1 

2,239 

866 

8.6 

1.9 

N 

99.6 

99.2 to 99.8 

Copper 

12/1 

2,383 

276 

8.0 

2.5 

N 

99.7 

99.4 to 99.8 

Iron 

12/1 

461,615 

100,251 

44.9 

66.2 

N 

100 

99.9 to 100 

Nickel 

12/1 

7,024 

834 

34.2 

15.4 

N 

99.5 

99.2 to 99.9 

Secondary' Water Quality Indicator Metals 

Cadmium 

12/1 

54.4 

6.1 

0.70 

0.28 

N 

98.7 

97.5 to 99.4 

Chromium 

12/1 

877 

173 

5.7 

12.2 

N 

99.3 

93.8 to 99.9 

Lead 

12/1 

7.6 

3.6 

2.0 

1.1 

N 

78.3 

69.2 to 86.7 

Selenium 

12/1 

4.3 

3.9 

3.8 

1.5 

N 

NC 

NC 

Zinc 

12/1 

1,469 

176 

19.3 

8.9 

N 

98.7 

97.4 to 99.4 

NC = Not calculated as influent and effluent concentrations were not statistically different 
pg/L = Microgram per liter 


Table 1-2. Active Lime Treatment System Removal Efficiencies: Monophasic Operation in 2003 


Target 

Metal 

Number of 
Sampling 
Events 

Average 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Pg /L i 

Standard 

Deviation 

Average 

Effluent 

Concentration 

_ 

Standard 

Deviation 

Exceeds 

Discharge 

Standards 

(Y/N) 

Average 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Range of 
Removal 
Efficiencies 
(%) 

Primary Tar 

get Metals 

Aluminum 

7 

107,800 

6,734 

633 

284 

N 

99.5 

99.0 to 99.8 

Arsenic 

7 

3,236 

252 

6.3 

3.5 

N 

99.8 

99.7 to 99.9 

Copper 

7 

2,152 

46.4 

3.1 

1.5 

N 

99.4 

99.0 to 99.7 

Iron 

7 

456,429 

49,430 

176 

130 

N 

100.0 

99.9 to 100.0 

Nickel 

7 

2,560 

128 

46.8 

34.7 

N 

97.9 

95.7 to 99.3 

Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals 

Cadmium 

7 

26.1 

14.1 

0.2 

0.027 

N 

99.1 

98.4 to 99.7 

Chromium 

7 

341 

129 

3.0 

3.8 

N 

99.0 

95.6 to 99.8 

Lead 

7 

6.2 

3.6 

1.6 

1.3 

N 

74.6 

48.3 to 89.8 

Selenium 

7 

16.6 

13.6 

2.1 

0.43 

N 

93.1 

91.0 to 94.4 

Zinc 

7 

538 

28.9 

5.6 

3.6 

N 

98.9 

97.7 to 99.6 

pg/L = Microgram per liter 


Table 1-3. Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Removal Efficiencies in 2002 


Target 

Metal 

Number of 
Sampling 
Events 

Average 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Hg^) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Average 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(H£/L) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Exceeds 

Discharge 

Standards 

(Y/N) 

Average 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Range of 
Removal 
Efficiencies 

(%) 

Primary Tar 

get Metals 

Aluminum 

8 

31,988 

827 

251 

160 

N 

99.2 

98.0 to 99.5 

Arsenic 

8 

519 

21.9 

5.8 

3.2 

N 

98.9 

97.6 to 99.5 

Copper 

8 

13.5 

2.5 

5.5 

2.0 

N 

58.3 

27.7 to 74.5 

Iron 

8 

391,250 

34.458 

148 

173 

N 

100 

99.9 to 100 

Nickel 

8 

1,631 

47.0 

22.6 

10.3 

N 

98.6 

97.2 to 99.1 

Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals 

Cadmium 

8 

0.2988 

0.0035 

0.4 

0.1 

N 

NC 

NC 

Chromium 

8 

19.3 

2.0 

2.3 

0.9 

N 

88.5 

83.1 to 92.3 

Lead 

8 

5.1 

1.2 

1.7 

0.8 

N 

66.4 

37.7 to 78.9 

Selenium 

8 

3.3 

1.6 

3.2 

1.3 

N 

NC 

NC 

Zinc 

8 

356 

6.6 

14.2 

8.6 

N 

96.0 

90.6 to 98.2 

NC = Not calculated as influent and effluent concentrations were not statistically different 

pg/L = Microgram per liter 


9 












































































































































Table 1-4. Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine 


Treatment 

System 

Mode of 
Operation 

Operational 

Year 

Solid Waste 
Stream 
Evaluated 

Total Solid 
Waste 
Generated 

TTLC 

STLC 

TCLP 

Waste 

Handling 

Requirement 

Pass or 
Fail 

Pass or 
Fail 

Pass or 
Fail 

Active Lime 
Treatment System 

Biphasic 

2002 

Phase I Filter Cake 

22.7 dry tons 

F 

F 

P 

Off-site TSD 
Facility 

Phase 11 Pit 

Clarifier Sludge 

118 dry tons 

P 

P 

P 

On-site Disposal 

2003 

Phase 1 Filter Cake 

21.1 dry tons 

F 

P 

P 

Off-site TSD 
Facility 

Phase II Pit 

Clarifier Sludge 

93.6 dry tons 

P 

F 

P 

On-site Storage 

Monophasic 

2003 

Filter Cake 

20.4 dry tons 

F 

F 

P 

Off-site TSD 
Facility 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon 
Treatment System 

2002 

Bag Filter Sludge 

Estimated 12.6 
dry tons 

P 

P 

P 

On-site Storage 

STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration TSD = Treatment, storage, and disposal 

TTLC = Total threshold limit concentration TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 


10 






















SECTION 2 

TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS 


The following sections discuss the effectiveness of the lime 
treatment technologies demonstrated at the Leviathan Mine 
site. The discussion includes a background summary of the 
site, descriptions of the technology process and the evaluation 
approach, a summary of field activities, and results of the 
evaluation. 

2.1 Background 

Leviathan Mine is a former copper and sulfur mine located 
high on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountain 
range, near the Califomia-Nevada border. Intermittent mining 
of copper sulfate, copper, and sulfur minerals since the mid- 
1860s resulted in extensive AMD and ARD at Leviathan 
Mine. During the process of converting underground 
workings into an open pit mine in the 1950s, approximately 
22 million tons of overburden and waste rock were removed 
from the open pit mine and distributed across the site. 
Oxidation of sulfur and sulfide minerals within the mine 
workings and waste rock forms sulfuric acid (H 2 S0 4 ), which 
liberates toxic metals from the mine wastes creating AMD and 
ARD. AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine contain high 
concentrations of toxic metals, including arsenic, and 
historically flowed directly to Leviathan Creek without 
capture or treatment. 

2.1.1 Site Description 

The Leviathan Mine property occupies approximately 102 
hectares in the Leviathan Creek basin, which is located on the 
northwestern flank of Leviathan Peak at an elevation ranging 
from 2,134 meters to 2,378 meters above mean sea level. 
Access to the mine site is provided by unpaved roads (United 
States Forest Service Road 52) from State Highway 89 on the 
southeast and from US Highway 395 south of Gardnerville, 
Nevada, on the northeast. Of the total property, approximately 
1 million square meters are disturbed by mine-related 
activities. With the exception of approximately 85 thousand 
square meters on Forest Service lands, mine-related workings 
are located on property owned by the State of California. 


Figure 2-1 presents a map showing the layout of the Leviathan 
Mine site. 

The mine site lies within the Bryant Creek watershed and is 
drained by Leviathan and Aspen creeks, which combine with 
Mountaineer Creek 3.5 kilometers below the mine to form 
Bryant Creek, a tributary to the East Fork of the Carson River. 
The terrain in the Leviathan Creek basin includes rugged 
mountains and high meadowlands. The area has a climate 
typical of the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada range 
characterized by warm dry summers with the bulk of the 
precipitation occurring as winter snow. Vegetation at the site 
is representative of the high Sierra Nevada floristic province, 
with scattered stands of mixed conifers or Jeffery pine on 
north-facing slopes. Aspen groves border parts of Leviathan 
and Aspen creeks, while shrub communities dominate flats 
and south facing slopes. 

Precipitation in the area around Leviathan Mine varies with 
elevation and distance from the crest of the Sierra Nevada 
mountain range. The heaviest precipitation is from November 
through April. Annual precipitation on western slopes of the 
Sierras averages about 55 inches, varying from a low of about 
20 inches to highs estimated in the range of 65 to 70 inches in 
some of the more remote mountain areas near the easterly 
boundary of Leviathan Creek basin. There is little 
precipitation data for the mine site; therefore, a mean annual 
precipitation was estimated at 27.8 inches per year using local 
w'eather monitoring stations provided by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (EMC 2 2004a). A large percentage of the precipitation 
which falls during the winter months occurs as snow. Snow 
pack accumulates from about November through March, with 
the maximum accumulation generally occurring about April 1. 
The average April 1 snow line is below an elevation of 1,525 
meters. The snow pack generally begins to melt during 
March, but the period of major snowmelt activity is typically 
April through July. Winter snow pack is the source of about 
50 percent of annual runoff. 


11 



LEGEND 




/ 


I 

i 



- OMitSl ] 


+. + ' - oatu« j 

f/i/mi 

' ’/■ '/■■ ■ .■// fvM 
■' * / ’> iM 

+ /■¥■/. - «»!»« J 


n? 

- «QO/l« 3 

; / 

V'. 


12 


FIGURE 2-1. SITE LAYOUT 















2.1.2 History of Contaminant Release 

Prior to 1984, the various sources of AMD and ARD 
discharging from the Leviathan Mine site included AMD from 
the floor of the mine pit flowing west into Leviathan Creek; 
AMD from Adit No. 5, located below the mine pit, flowing 
west into Leviathan Creek; ARD from the Delta Area (also 
known as Delta Seep), located adjacent to Leviathan Creek 
along the western edge of the mine area, flowing northwest 
into Leviathan Creek; and ARD from Aspen Seep, located 
along the northern portion of the site within the overburden 
tailings piles, flowing north into Aspen Creek. Historically, 
the concentrations of five primary target metals, aluminum, 
arsenic, copper, iron, and nickel in the AMD and ARD 
released to Leviathan and Aspen creeks have exceeded EPA 
discharge standards up to 3,000 fold. Historical 
concentrations for each source of AMD and ARD are 
presented in Table 2-1. 

When AMD was inadvertently released in large quantities 
from the Leviathan Mine site in the 1950s, elevated 
concentrations of toxic metals resulted in fish and insect kills 
in Leviathan Creek, Bryant Creek, and the east fork of the 
Carson River. The absence of trout among the fish killed in 
Bryant Creek and in the east fork of the Carson River 
immediately downstream from Bryant Creek indicated that 
continuous discharges from mining operations had eliminated 
the more sensitive trout fisheries that existed prior to open-pit 
operations. Various efforts were made between 1954 and 
1975 to characterize the impacts of Leviathan Mine on water 
quality at and below the site during and after open-pit mining 
operations (California Regional Water Quality Control Board 
- Lahontan Region [RWQCB] 1995). 

2.1.3 Previous A ctions 

The Leviathan Mine Pollution Abatement Project was initiated 
by the state of California in 1979 with the preparation of a 
feasibility study. In 1982, the State contracted the design of 
the Pollution Abatement Program, which was then 
implemented in 1984 with physical actions that significantly 
reduced the quantity of toxic metals discharging from the mine 
site. Work conducted at the site included regrading over¬ 
burden piles to prevent impounding and infiltration of 
precipitation and promote surface runoff; partially filling and 
grading the open pit; constructing a surface water collection 
system within the reworked mine pit to redirect 
uncontaminated surface water to Leviathan Creek; 
constructing a pit under drain (PUD) system beneath the pit 
(prior to filling and grading) to collect and divert surface water 
seeping into the pit floor; construction of five 
storage/evaporation ponds to collect discharge from the PUD, 
Delta Seep, and Adit No. 5; and rerouting Leviathan Creek by 
way of a concrete diversion channel to minimize contact of 
creek water with waste rock piles. During pond construction, 
previously unrecognized springs were encountered. To 


capture the subsurface flow from these springs, a channel 
under drain (CUD) was constructed beneath Leviathan Creek 
(RWQCB 1995). 

Starting in 1997, EPA initiated enforcement actions at the 
Leviathan Mine site to further mitigate potential releases of 
AMD and ARD from the various sources. In response to 
EPA’s 1997 action memorandum, the state of California 
implemented the active lime treatment system in 1999 to treat 
AMD that collects in the retention ponds. Since the 
installation of the active lime treatment system in 1999, no 
releases of AMD have occurred from the retention ponds to 
Leviathan Creek. Between 2000 and 2001, EPA initiated 
further actions with three additional action memoranda. In 
response to EPA’s July 21, 2001, action memorandum, ARCO 
implemented the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment 
system to treat ARD from the CUD. Figure 2-1 presents a 
detailed site map of the mine site as it exists in 2004, after 
implementation of the lime treatment systems and other 
physical work conducted at the mine site. 

In 2002, EPA prepared an additional action memorandum 
setting final discharge standards for the five primary target 
metals and five secondary water quality indicator metals for 
discharge of treated water from the treatment systems to 
Leviathan Creek (EPA 2002). Discharge standards for the 
five primary metals of concern are presented in Table 2-1. 
The maximum daily standard equals the highest concentration 
of a target metal to which aquatic life can be exposed for a 
short period of time without deleterious effects. The four-day 
average standard equals the highest concentration of a target 
metal to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended 
period of time (4 days) without deleterious effects. 

2.2 Process Description 

Each lime treatment system evaluated at Leviathan Mine was 
set up to treat a specific AMD, ARD, or combined AMD/ARD 
flow captured at the mine site. Operated in monophasic mode, 
the active lime treatment system was evaluated for its ability 
to treat a combined moderate ARD/'AMD flow from Adit 
No.5, CUD, and Delta Seep sources of about 250 liters per 
minute (L/min), without regard to metals species or 
concentrations in the source. Operated in biphasic mode, the 
active lime treatment system was evaluated for its ability to 
treat a high AMD flow from the retention ponds of about 720 
L/min where arsenic concentrations were high enough to 
generate a hazardous solid waste stream. The alkaline lagoon 
treatment system was evaluated for its ability to treat a low 
ARD flow from the CUD of about 120 L/min with relatively 
low metals content. Each treatment system was optimized for 
flow rate and target metals precipitation based on the source 
being treated. The following sections describe the processes 
for each treatment system. 


13 



Table 2-1. Summary of Historical Metals of Concern 


Analyte 

Number of 
Samples 

Detection 

Percentage 

Minimum 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Mean 

(mg/L) 

Standard 

Deviation 

(mg/L) 

Discharge Standards 

Maximum (a) 
(mg/L) 

Average (b) 

Adit No. 5 

-•- 

1 Aluminum 

46 

100 

220 

430 

310.4 

63.61 

4.0 

2.0 

| Arsenic 

45 

100 

8.6 

28 

16.24 

5.454 

0.34 

0.15 

Copper 

28 

100 

0.88 

4.2 

1.503 

0.965 

0.026 

0.016 

1 Iron 

45 

100 

120 

2,400 

815.1 

368.7 

2.0 

1.0 

Nickel 

46 

100 

4.4 

10 

6.113 

1.624 

0.84 

0.094 

i - 

Combination of Ponds 1, 2 North, and 2 South 

Aluminum 

29 

100 

3 

4,900 

1,198.9 

1,036.2 

4.0 

2.0 

Arsenic 

27 

100 

0.192 

92 

27.05 

19.88 

0.34 

0.15 

Copper 

9 

100 

2.4 

35 

8.133 

10.19 

0.026 

0.016 

Iron 

32 

100 

4 

6,600 

1,733.9 

1,449.7 

2.0 

1.0 

Nickel 

27 

100 

1.2 

61 

17.50 

11.96 

0.84 

0.094 

Channel Under Drain 

Aluminum 

60 

100 

29 

68 

48.03 

10.64 

4.0 

2.0 

Arsenic 

61 

100 

0.091 

0.80 

0.447 

0.191 

0.34 

0.15 

Copper 

37 

97.3 

0 

0.13 

0.026 

0.035 

0.026 

0.016 

Iron 

61 

100 

270 

460 

367 

59.16 

2.0 

1.0 

Nickel 

61 

100 

0.21 

3.4 

1.947 

0.791 

0.84 

0.094 

Aspen Seep 

Aluminum 

34' 

100 

0.073 

65 

50.86 

14.17 

4.0 

2.0 

Arsenic 

34 

97.1 

0 

0.1 

0.028 

0.027 

0.34 

0.15 

Copper 

21 

95.2 

0 

1.8 

1.294 

0.549 

0.026 

0.016 

Iron 

34 

100 

0.11 

580 

123.9 

113.2 

2.0 

1.0 

Nickel 

34 

97.1 

0 

0.75 

0.554 

0.181 

0.84 

0.094 

Delta Seep 

Aluminum 

18 

100 

0.89 

4.7 

1.68 

0.879 

4.0 

2.0 

Arsenic 

19 

84.2 

0.052 

0.094 

0.067 

0.012 

0.34 

0.15 

Copper 

17 

35.3 

0.0018 

0.14 

0.0324 

0.054 

0.026 

0.016 

Iron 

19 

100 

18.0 

33.0 

21.5 

3.93 

2.0 

1.0 

Nickel 

18 

100 

0.41 

0.563 

0.493 

0.051 

0.84 

0.094 

II (a) Based on a daily composite of three grab samples 

(b) Based on the average of four daily composite samples 

I mg/L = MiHigramj3erTitei 


2.2.1 Active Lime Treatment System 

Influent to the active lime treatment system consists of AMD 
pumped out of retention ponds 1, 2 north, and 2 south. In the 
biphasic mode (Figure 1-2), influent is pumped from Pond 1 at 
a flow rate of up to 720 L/min into the 40,000 liter Phase 1 
reaction tank. Forty-five percent lime slurry is then added at 
up to 1.3 L/min to raise the pH to approximately 2.8 to 3.0. In 
this pH range, a portion of the dissolved ferrous iron is 
oxidized to ferric iron and precipitates out of solution (as 
ferric hydroxide) along with the majority of dissolved arsenic. 
Process water was draw'n from upper Leviathan Creek to make 
up the lime slurry used in the treatment process. The process 
solution then flows to a 4,000 liter flash/floc mixing tank 


where a polymer flocculent is added to promote growth of 
ferric iron hydroxide and adsorbed arsenic floe. The process 
solution then flows into the 40,000 liter Phase I clarifier for 
floe settling and thickening. Supernatant from the Phase I 
clarifier flows into the Phase II reaction tank for additional 
lime treatment of remaining acidity and target metals. The 
thickened ferric iron hydroxide and arsenic solids are 
periodically pumped from the bottom of the Phase I clarifier 
into sludge holding tanks, and then into a 550 liter-capacity 
batch filter press for dewatering. The small volume of 
arsenic-laden Phase I filter cake is disposed of as a hazardous 
waste at an off site TSD facility. Supernatant from the sludge 
holding tanks and filtrate from the filter press are pumped to 
the Phase II reaction tank for additional treatment. The total 


14 



















































































































































hydraulic residence time (HRT) for Phase 1 of the active lime 
treatment system is about 2 hours at maximum flow rate. 

To complete the precipitation of metals during biphasic 
operation, the pH of the process solution in the 40,000 liter 
Phase II reaction tank is raised to approximately 7.9 to 8.2 by 
adding up to 2.3 L/min of forty-five percent lime slurry. The 
process solution then flows to a 4,000 liter flash/floc mixing 
tank where a polymer flocculent is added to promote growth 
of the metal hydroxide floe. The process solution then flows 
into a 40,000 liter Phase II clarifier. The partially thickened 
precipitate is pumped from the bottom of the Phase II clarifier 
uphill to the 3.1 million liter pit clarifier, located within the 
mine pit, for extended settling. Supernatant from the pit 
clarifier that meets the discharge standards is released by 
gravity flow to Leviathan Creek. If the supernatant from the 
pit clarifier does not meet discharge standards, it is returned to 
Pond 1 for additional treatment. The non-hazardous metals- 
laden precipitate is removed from the pit clarifier annually, 
dewatered and air dried, and disposed of on site. The total 
HRT for Phase II of the active lime treatment system is about 
3 to 6 days. 

The active lime treatment system operated in the monophasic 
mode (Figure 1-3) utilizes the same process equipment as the 
system operated in biphasic mode; however, the precipitation 
process results in a single “output stream” of metals-laden 
precipitate that is thickened in the Phase II clarifier and 
dewatered using the batch filter press. Other changes include 
a lower influent flow rate of up to 250 L/min (due to HRT and 
thickening limitations of the Phase II clarifier), a lower lime 
dosage rate (0.35 L/min of forty-five percent lime slurry), and 
a difference in the makeup of the source water. The source 
water was comprised of a mixture of low-arsenic content ARD 
(50 percent from the CUD and 17.6 percent from Delta Seep) 
and high-arsenic content AMD (32.4 percent from Adit No.5). 
Because of the elevated arsenic concentrations in the source 
water, the resulting filter cake from operation of the active 
lime treatment system in monophasic mode exceeds State 
hazardous waste criteria and must be disposed of at an off site 
TSD facility. 

2.2.2 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment 
System 

ARCO first tested the alkaline lagoon treatment system in 
2001 for treatment of ARD recovered from the CUD. During 
operation of the alkaline lagoon treatment system (Figure 1-4), 
the ARD from the CUD is pumped to the head of the alkaline 
lagoon treatment system, which is located on a high density 
polyethylene (HDPE)-lined treatment pad along the north 
berm of the treatment lagoon. The influent is pumped uphill 
from the CUD at a flow rate up to 120 L/min into three 
4,000 liter lime contact reactors; the reactors have a combined 
HRT of 1 hour and 40 minutes at maximum flow rate. Forty- 
five percent lime slurry is added to each of the lime contact 
reactors (combined dosage rate of 0.16 L/min) to raise the pH 
to about 8.0. Process water was drawn from upper Leviathan 


Creek to make up the lime slurry used in the treatment 
process. The reactors are sparged with compressed air to 
provide vigorous mixing of the lime/ARD solution. Air 
sparging also helps to oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, which 
reduces lime demand. During sparging, metal hydroxide floe 
forms within the reaction tanks. The process solution then 
flows by gravity through a series of six 5- by 5-meter spun 
fabric bag filters to remove the metal hydroxide floe. 

The bag filtration process relies on the build up of filter cake 
on the inside of each bag to remove progressively smaller floe 
particles. Effluent from the bag filters, including soluble 
metals, unreacted lime, and floe particles too small to be 
captured, flows by gravity into the 5.4 million liter multi-cell 
settling lagoon. The settling lagoon is divided into two 
sections using an anchored silt fence. Unsettled solids are 
captured on the silt screen between the two cells. The settling 
lagoon typically provides a HRT of 415 hours at a flow rate of 
120 L/min. This extended residence time facilitates contact of 
any remaining dissolved metals with unreacted lime. Effluent 
from the settling lagoon that meets EPA discharge standards is 
periodically discharged to Leviathan Creek. The non- 
hazardous precipitate captured in the bag filters and settled in 
the lagoon is periodically recovered and stored on site. 

2.3 Evaluation Approach 

Evaluation of the lime treatment technologies occurred 
between June 2002 and October 2003, separated by winter 
shutdown. During the evaluation period, multiple sampling 
events were conducted for each of the treatment systems in 
accordance with the 2002 and 2003 Technology Evaluation 
Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plans (TEP/QAPP) (Tetra 
Tech 2002 and 2003). During each sampling event, EPA 
collected metals data from each systems’ influent and effluent 
streams, documented metals removal and reduction in acidity 
within each systems’ unit operations, and recorded operational 
information pertinent to the evaluation of each treatment 
system. The treatment systems were evaluated independently, 
based on removal efficiencies for primary and secondary 
target metals, comparison of effluent concentrations to EPA- 
mandated discharge standards, and on the characteristics of 
and disposal requirements for the resulting metals-laden solid 
wastes. Removal efficiencies of individual unit operations 
were also evaluated. The following sections describe in more 
detail the project objectives and sampling program. 

2.3.1 Project Objecti ves 

As discussed in the TEP/QAPPs (Tetra Tech 2002 and 2003), 
two primary objectives identified for the SITE demonstration 
were considered critical to the success of the lime treatment 
technology evaluation. Five secondary objectives were 
identified to provide additional information that is useful, but 
not critical to the technology evaluation. The primary 
objectives of the technology evaluations were to: 


15 



• Determine the removal efficiencies for primary target 
metals over the evaluation period 

• Determine if the concentrations of the primary target 
metals in the treated effluent are below the discharge 
standards mandated in 2002 Action Memorandum for 
Early Actions at Leviathan Mine (EPA 2002)The 
following secondary objectives also were identified: 

• Document operating parameters and assess critical 
operating conditions necessary to optimize system 
performance 

• Monitor the general chemical characteristics of the 
AMD or ARD water as it passes through the 
treatment system 

• Evaluate operational performance and efficiency of 
solids separation systems 

• Document solids transfer, dewatering, and disposal 
operations 

• Determine capital and operation and maintenance 
costs 

2.3.2 Sampling Program 

Over the duration of the demonstration, EPA collected 
pretreatment, process, and post-treatment water samples from 
each lime treatment system. These samples were used to 
evaluate the primary and secondary objectives, as identified in 
the TEP/QAPPs (Tetra Tech 2002 and 2003). Sludge samples 
also were collected to document the physical and chemical 
characteristics of the sludge and to estimate the volume and 
rate of sludge generation by each treatment technology. 
Summary tables documenting the water and sludge samples 
collected and the analyses performed for each lime treatment 
system are presented in Appendix A. In addition to chemical 
analyses performed on the samples collected, observations 
were recorded on many aspects of the operations of each 
treatment system. The sampling program is summarized 
below by objective. 

Primary Objective 1: Determine the removal efficiency 
for each metal of concern over the demonstration period. 

To achieve this objective, influent and effluent samples from 
each treatment system were collected from strategic locations 
within the treatment systems. The samples were filtered, 
preserved, and then analyzed for primary target metals: 
aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, and nickel and secondary 
water quality indicator metals: cadmium, chromium, lead, 
selenium, and zinc. When possible, effluent samples were 
collected approximately one HRT after the influent samples 
were collected. However, because the HRT of the different 
treatment systems ranged from hours to days and changed 
with operational conditions, it was not always practical to 
implement such a time-separated pairing procedure. From the 
influent and effluent data collected, overall average removal 
efficiencies were calculated for each target metal over the 


period of the demonstration. The results of the removal 
efficiency calculations are summarized in Section 2.5.1. 

Primary Objective 2: Determine if the concentration of 
each target metal in the treated effluent is below the EPA 
discharge standard. Results from effluent samples collected 
to meet Primary Objective 1 were used to meet this objective. 
The sampling schedule was designed so that a composite of 
three grab samples were collected on each sampling day. 
Results from daily composite samples were compared against 
EPA’s daily maximum discharge standards (EPA 2002). In 
addition, 4-day running averages were calculated for each 
target metal for comparison against EPA’s four-day average 
discharge standards. To determine if the discharge standards 
were met, the effluent data were compared directly to the 
applicable standards as specified in Table 2-1. In addition, a 
statistical analysis was performed to determine whether or not 
statistically the results were below the discharge standards. 
The results of the comparison of effluent data to discharge 
standards are summarized in Section 2.5.2. 

Secondary Objective 1: Document operating parameters 
and assess critical operating conditions necessary to 
optimize system performance. To achieve this objective, 
system flow rate data, chemical dosing and aeration rate data, 
and contact and mixing time data were recorded by the system 
operators and the SITE demonstration sampling team. The 
performance of individual unit operations was assessed by 
determining the reduction in target metal concentrations along 
each treatment system flow path. A description of system 
operating parameters and discussion of metals reduction 
within individual unit operations are presented in 
Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 for the active lime treatment system 
and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system, 
respectively. 

Secondary Objective 2: Monitor the general chemical 
characteristics of the AMD or ARD water as it passes 
through the treatment system. To achieve this objective, the 
influent and effluent samples collected to meet Primary 
Objectives 1 and 2 were analyzed for total iron, sulfate, total 
suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), and total 
and bicarbonate alkalinity. Field measurements were also 
collected for ferrous iron, sulfide, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), 
temperature, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and 
conductivity. A discussion of these data and associated 
reaction chemistry for the active lime treatment system and 
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system are presented in 
Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4, respectively. 

Secondary' Objective 3: Evaluate operational performance 
and efficiency of solids separation systems. To achieve this 
objective, influent, intermediate, and effluent samples were 
collected from the solids separation systems of each treatment 
system. The samples were analyzed for filtered and unfiltered 
metals, TSS, and TDS to assess target metal removal 


16 



efficiencies, solids removal rates and efficiencies, HRT, and 
residual levels of solids in the effluent streams. 

The results of this evaluation for the active lime treatment 
system and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system are 
presented in Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4, respectively. 

Secondary Objective 4: Document solids transfer, 
dewatering, and disposal operations. To achieve this 
objective, the system operators maintained a log of the volume 
and rate of solids transferred from the solids separation 
systems for dewatering and disposal. Solids samples were 
collected after dewatering and analyzed for residual moisture 
content and total and leachable metals to determine waste 
characteristics necessary to select an appropriate method of 
disposal. Leachable metals were evaluated using the 
California Waste Extraction Test (WET) (State of California 
2004), the Method 1311: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 
Procedure (TCLP) (EPA 1997), and Method 1312: Synthetic 
Precipitation and Leaching Procedure (SPLP) (EPA 1997). 
An evaluation of solids handling for each treatment system is 
presented in Section 2.5.5. 

2.4 Field Evaluation Activities 

The following sections discuss activities required to conduct a 
technical evaluation of each treatment technology at the 
Leviathan Mine site. The discussion includes a summary of 
mobilization activities, operation and maintenance activities, 
process modifications, evaluation monitoring activities, 
demobilization activities, and lessons learned. 

2.4.1 Mobilization Activities 

The active lime treatment system was constructed in 1999 and 
was in operation for three years prior to technology evaluation 
activities. Therefore, mobilization activities were limited to 
system reassembly and shakedown conducted in the spring, 
after winter shutdown. Mobilization activities typically 
require a three week period and include the following: 

• Removal of previous year’s sludge accumulation 
from the pit clarifier and disposal on site as a non- 
hazardous waste. 

• Pressure washing of gypsum coating on reaction 
tanks and lamella clarifiers. 

• Pipe and hose lay out and assembly. 

• Modifications to source water capture and delivery 
system and effluent discharge system. 

• System filling, pressure testing, and leak repair. 

• Removal of precipitation from fuel storage secondary 
containment units. 

• Delivery and setup of site support equipment, 
supplies, and chemical reagents 


The alkaline lagoon was constructed in 2001 and was in 
operation for one year prior to technology evaluation 
activities. Therefore, mobilization activities were limited to 
system reassembly and shakedown conducted in the spring, 
after winter shutdown. Mobilization activities typically 
require a two week period and include the following: 

• Removal of bag filters containing previous year's 
sludge accumulation and placement in roll-off bins 
for off site disposal as a non-hazardous waste. 

• Pipe and hose lay out and assembly. 

• Capture of Delta Seep and modification of the CUD 
delivery system to include water from Delta Seep. 

• Repair of liner underlying treatment system. 

• System filling, pressure testing, and leak repair. 

• Removal of precipitation from fuel storage secondary 
containment units. 

• Delivery and setup of site support equipment, 
supplies, and chemical reagents. 

2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance Activities 

The following sections discuss operation and maintenance 
activities documented during the evaluation of each treatment 
technology. The discussion includes a summary of each 
system’s startup and shutdown dates, treatment and discharge 
rates, problems encountered, quantity of waste treated, 
reagents consumed, process waste generated, and percentage 
of time each system was operational. 

2.4.2.1 Active Lime Treatment System 

The active lime treatment system was operated in the biphasic 
mode in 2002. and in both the biphasic and monophasic modes 
in 2003. A description of system operation and maintenance 
activities for each mode of operation is presented below. 

Biphasic Operations. During the 2002 treatment season, the 
system began treating pond water on July 10, 2002. By July 
18, 2002, up to 700 L/min of AMD was being treated. 
Treatment rates ranged from 390 to 700 L/min. On July 22, 
effluent began discharging from the pit clarifier to Leviathan 
Creek. Discharge rates ranged from 290 to 460 L/min. The 
system was shut down on August 1, due to a low lime supply 
and clogs in the delivery system. The lime storage tanks and 
delivery lines were flushed out and operations resumed on 
August 6. On August 8, 2002 a pH probe in the Phase II 
reaction tank was found to be out of calibration and was 
replaced. On August 15, 2002 the pipelines carrying treated 
slurry up to the pit clarifier were found to be constricted with 
gypsum precipitate, reducing the system treatment rate. The 
pipes were replaced to alleviate flow constrictions. Treatment 
of pond water was completed on September 24, 2002. During 
2002, the system treated 14.7 million liters of AMD using 


17 



75 dry tons of lime and generated 22.7 dry tons of hazardous 
solids and 118 dry tons of non-hazardous solids. The system 
was operational approximately 84 percent of the time during 
the 2002 treatment season. The system was operated 16 hours 
per day, during two shifts, each shift staffed by an operator 
and a helper. 

During the 2003 treatment season, the system began treating 
pond water on July 28, 2003. Treatment rates ranged from 
620 to 700 L/min. On July 31, effluent began discharging 
from the pit clarifier to Leviathan Creek. Discharge rates 
ranged from 230 to 930 L/min. The system was shut down on 
August 1 due to a viscous lime supply limiting the function of 
the lime delivery system. Solidified lime was cleaned out of 
the storage tanks, new lime was delivered, and operations 
resumed on August 3. On August 5, a pH probe in the 
Phase II reaction tank was found to be out of calibration and 
was replaced. On August 6, minor polymer feed adjustments 
were required during night time operations, potentially due to 
cool overnight temperatures. Treatment of pond water was 
completed on August 14, 2003. During 2003, the system 
treated 13.6 million liters of AMD using 49.6 dry tons of lime 
and generated 21.1 dry tons of hazardous solids and 93.6 dry 
tons of non-hazardous solids. The system was operational 
approximately 95 percent of the time during the 2003 
treatment season. The system was operated 24 hours per day, 
during three shifts, each shift staffed by an operator and a 
helper. 

Monophasic Operations. During the 2003 treatment season, 
the system began treating combined flows from the CUD, 
Delta Seep, and Adit No. 5 on June 18, 2003. Treatment rates 
ranged from 220 to 250 L/min. System effluent was 
discharged to Pond 4, in case of system upset, prior to batch 
discharge to Leviathan Creek. On June 25 and July 14, 
effluent was pumped out of Pond 4 and into Leviathan Creek. 
Batch discharge occurred over a 3 to 4 day period at flow rates 
of 500 to 890 L/min. Monophasic treatment of combined 
flows from the CUD, Delta Seep, and Adit No. 5 was 
discontinued on July 20, 2003 to begin treatment of pond 
water under biphasic operational conditions. During 2003, the 
system treated 17.4 million liters of combined AMD and ARD 
using 23.8 dry tons of lime and generated 20.4 dry tons of 
hazardous solids. The system was operational approximately 
96 percent of the time during the 2003 treatment season. The 
system was operated 24 hours per day, during three shifts, 
each shift staffed by an operator and a helper. 

2.4.2.2 Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 

During the 2002 treatment season, the semi-passive alkaline 
lagoon treatment system began treating combined flows from 
the CUD on June 26, 2002. Treatment rates ranged from 62 to 
120 L/min. On June 27, the aeration system in each reaction 
tank was modified to increase aeration efficiency. The bag 
filters required one day to build up a sufficient layer of cake to 
adequately filter floe from solution. Treated water in the 


lagoon was recirculated to homogenize higher pH water 
discharged to the lagoon during startup. 

System effluent was periodically batch discharged from the 
lagoon to Leviathan Creek. On July 25, system discharge was 
temporarily suspended because the silt curtains separating the 
two cells within the lagoon became clogged. Water was not 
flowing readily through the silt curtain when effluent was 
discharged from Cell 2, causing strain on the barriers. The silt 
curtain between Cells 1 and 2 was cleaned to increase flow, 
and system discharge resumed by the afternoon. A similar 
problem occurred and was resolved on August 15. System 
effluent was also discharged from the lagoon to Leviathan 
Creek on September 4, September 23, and October 15, 2002. 
Batch discharge generally occurred over a 2 to 3 day period at 
flow rates of 320 to 430 L/min. 

Between July 27 and July 28, the pipe carrying partially 
treated slurry between Reaction Tank No. 1 and No. 2 became 
clogged. Partially treated slurry from Reaction Tank No. 1 
overflowed and spilled into the lagoon. Excess lime was 
added to the treatment system to increase lagoon pH, and 
water was re-circulated in the lagoon to balance pH and 
facilitate precipitation. On October 10, a lime delivery line 
broke, spilling approximately 1,950 liters of lime onto the 
treatment system pad and into the lagoon. Treated water was 
recirculated in the lagoon to balance the pH in the lagoon. 
Treatment was discontinued on November 1, 2002 due to 
freezing and breaking of system piping. During 2002, the 
system treated 12.3 million liters of ARD using 19.4 dry tons 
of lime and generated 12.6 dry tons of non-hazardous solids. 
The system was operational approximately 89 percent of the 
time during the 2002 treatment season. The system was 
operated 24 hours per day; however, minimal staffing was 
required for operation. Staff operating the active lime 
treatment system conducted at least hourly checks on the 
system. 

2.4.3 Process Modifications 

The following sections discuss process modifications 
documented during the evaluation of each treatment 
technology. 

2.4.3.1 Active Lime Treatment System 

A number of modifications were made to the Active Lime 
Treatment System to alleviate problems encountered during 
operations. The majority of the modifications were made to 
alleviate problems related to lime delivery and process control. 

Process modifications enacted during biphasic operations 
included: 

• New lime delivery pumps designed to handle solids 
more efficiently were installed. However, the new 


18 



pumps did not completely solve the lime clogging 
problem. 

• Flocculent was injected into the lines carrying slurry 
from the Phase II clarifier to the pit clarifier. The 
addition of flocculent after the Phase II clarifier 
reduced sludge build-up in the clarifier and increased 
operating efficiency. Because of restrictions due to 
scale buildup, an additional pipeline was installed to 
carry treated slurry from the Phase II clarifier to the 
pit clarifier. The addition of the new 4-inch diameter 
pipeline significantly increased flow capacity to the 
pit clarifier. 

Process modifications enacted during monophasic operations 
included: 

• In an effort to decrease lime consumption and 
improve precipitate growth, a sludge recirculation 
system was constructed. The system was designed to 
collect a fraction of the sludge from the Phase II 
clarifier, and re-circulate the sludge (generally 
3 percent solids and 97 percent water) into the 
reaction tank. Excess alkalinity and “seed” solids in 
the re-circulated sludge increased reaction efficiency, 
reduced lime consumption, and improved particulate 
settling in the Phase II clarifier. 

• Lime was added to Reaction Tank No. 1 to allow a 
longer period for lime dissolution and reaction with 
metals, reducing overall lime requirement and 
treatment system scaling. 

2.4.3.2 Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 

A number of modifications were made to the semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system to alleviate problems 
encountered during operations. The majority of the 
modifications were made to alleviate problems related to 
aeration and lime delivery and process control. Process 
modifications implemented included: 

• New aerators were installed in the reaction tanks to 
increase aeration rate and mixing. 

• The lime delivery system was modified on July 9, 
2002, to supply lime automatically based on the pH 
in Reaction Tank No.l, rather than at a specified 
delivery rate. The pH-based system, similar to that 
used on the active lime treatment system, operated 
more effectively with minor variations observed in 
the CUD flow rate and chemistry. 

2.4.4 Evaluation Monitoring Activities 

The following sections discuss monitoring activities 
conducted during the evaluation of each treatment technology. 
The discussion includes a summary of sampling dates and 


locations for system performance, unit operations, solids 
handling, and solids disposal samples outlined in the sampling 
program (see Section 2.3.2). Summary tables documenting 
the water and sludge samples collected and the analyses 
performed for each lime treatment system are presented in 
Appendix A. 

2.4.4.1 Active Lime Treatment System 

The active lime treatment system was operated in the biphasic 
mode in 2002, and in both the biphasic and monophasic modes 
in 2003. A description of evaluation monitoring activities for 
each mode of operation is presented below. 

Biphasic Evaluation Monitoring Activities. Both system 
performance and unit operations sampling was performed in 

2002. System performance samples were collected from the 
system influent and effluent on July 18, 23, 25, and 30, August 
1, 8, 15, 20, 22, 27, and 29, and September 4, 2002. Unit 
operations samples of the Phase 1 reaction tank effluent, Phase 
II reaction tank effluent, Phase II reaction tank influent, pit 
clarifier influent, and sludge tank overflow were collected on 
August 20, 2002. Solids handling samples of the pit clarifier 
sludge, filter press effluent, and filter cake were collected on 
August 27, 2002. 

Limited monitoring was performed in 2003. Samples were 
collected from the system influent and effluent, Phase 1 
reaction tank effluent, Phase II reaction tank effluent, Phase II 
reaction tank influent, Phase II clarifier settled solids, filter 
press decant, filter cake, Phase I flash/floc tank, Phase II flash/ 
floe tank, and Phase I clarifier settled solids on August 12, 

2003. 

Monophasic Evaluation Monitoring Activities. System 
performance samples were collected from the system influent 
and effluent on June 24 and 26, and July 1, 3, 9, 10, and 16, 
2003. An effluent sample was collected from Pond 4 prior to 
batch discharge on July 10, 2003. Unit operations samples of 
the Phase I reaction tank effluent, Phase II reaction tank 
influent. Phase II reaction tank effluent, Phase II clarifier 
influent, Phase II clarifier settled solids, and filter cake were 
collected on July 3, 2003. Solids handling samples of the 
Phase I clarifier settled solids, filter press decant, Phase II 
clarifier influent, and Phase II clarifier settled solids were 
collected on July 10, 2003. 

2.4.4.2 Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 

System performance samples were collected from the system 
influent and effluent on July 18, 23, 25, and 30, and August 1, 
6, 8, and 13, 2002. Water samples were collected from lagoon 
Cell No.l and Cell No. 2 on July 30, 2002, to evaluate 
particulate settling. Samples of the bag filter influent and bag 
filter effluent were collected on July 23 and 30, and August 6 
and 13, 2002, to evaluate solids filtration. A sludge sample 


19 



was collected from bag filter No. 1 on August 27, 2002, for 
waste characterization. 

2.4.5 Demobilization Activities 

Both treatment systems have been permanently constructed at 
Leviathan Mine and are winterized at the end of the treatment 
season to prevent damage during freezing conditions. 
Therefore, demobilization activities were limited to system 
disassembly and storage. 

Demobilization activities required for the active lime 
treatment system typically occur over a three week period and 
include: 

• Draining untreated and partially treated AMD from 
the reaction tanks, clarifiers, pumps, and lines back 
into the AMD pond. 

• Cleaning solids and scale from the interior of the 
reaction tanks, lime slurry tank, and clarifiers. 

• Discharging treated water from the pit clarifier to 
Leviathan Creek. 

• Draining makeup water from the storage tank into the 
AMD pond. 

• Draining and cleaning flocculent and lime from the 
feed pumps and lines. 

• Storing flocculent and lime reagents. 

• Disassembling, cleaning, and storing transfer lines, 
pumps, and electrical lines. 

• Shipping accumulated hazardous solids off-site to a 
permitted TSD facility. 

• Removing office trailers, portable toilets, generators, 
forklift, and man lift. 

Demobilization activities required for the semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system typically occur over a three 
week period and include: 

• Disassembling, cleaning, and storing CUD capture 
lines, holding tanks, lift pumps, and transfer lines. 

• Discharging treated water from the lagoon to 
Leviathan Creek. 

• Draining treated ARD from the reaction tanks, lines, 
and bag filters into the lagoon. 

• Draining lime from the feed pumps and lines. 

• Disassembling, cleaning, and storing transfer lines, 
pumps, and electrical lines. 

• Cleaning solids and scale from the interior of the 
reaction tanks and lime slurry tank. 

• Shipping accumulated solids in the bag filters to an 
off-site non-hazardous waste landfill. 


• Removing office trailers, portable toilets, generators, 
forklift, and man lift. 

2.4.6 Lessons Learned 

This section discusses the lessons learned during the technical 
evaluation of each treatment system. The discussion includes 
observations, recommendations, and ideas to be implemented 
during future operations and for similar treatment systems. 

Lessons learned during the operation of active lime treatment 
system include: 

• Lime feed pumps periodically plugged due to lime 
scaling. In addition, the lime slurry holding tank is 
not mixed, so precipitates tend to cake and form 
lumps that plug the outlet. The tank needs to be 
mixed to minimize lumping and cake formation, a 
higher purity lime needs to be used to improve 
pumpability, and a new pumping system needs to be 
designed that can handle high concentrations of lime 
without plugging. 

• Phase II slurry lines from the Phase II clarifier to the 
pit clarifier continuously scale, restricting flow. 
Better lime control is necessary in the Phase II 
reaction tank to minimize excess calcium in the 
slurry passing through and scaling pipe surfaces. 

• Aeration bars at the bottom of reaction tanks are 
undersized (too few holes and too small) and 
consistently plug. The aeration system needs to be 
redesigned to improve aeration mixing. A better 
method is needed to retrieve, maintain, and clean 
aeration bars. An alternative would be to use 
mechanical means of mixing instead of aeration. 

• All process-monitoring probes continuously coat with 

scale and become ineffective within one to two 
weeks causing the lime dosing system to 

malfunction. Presently, pH samples are monitored 
externally and lime dosing is manually controlled. 
An alternate pH monitoring approach or different 
monitoring locations should be evaluated. 

• Flocculent dosage is marginally effective for Phase I 
solids floe formation. A dosing study should be 
conducted or a different flocculent used to improve 
Phase I filter cake characteristics. 

Lessons learned during the operation of the semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system include: 

• The peristaltic pump used for lime delivery 
continually plugged due to viscous lime and lime 
scaling. A different lime delivery system needs to be 
designed and a higher purity used to improve 
pumpability. 


20 




• Existing variable frequency device and submersible 
pumps are under powered for the elevation head 
difference between CUD and the treatment facility. 
Larger pumps are needed to maintain efficient 
transfer of CUD water up to the treatment system. 

• Bag filters may limit operations during freezing 
temperatures in fall and spring due to icing of the 
filter fabric, which will create backpressure within 
the system. 

• The bag filters cannot be removed from the site until 
the end of the treatment season. Solids removal from 
the site requires dewatering the bag filters, cutting the 
bag filters open, and using a loader to scrape up 
material for placement in a roll off bin. A better 
method for handling of bag filters is needed. 

2.5 Technology Evaluation Results 

This section summarizes the evaluation of the metals data 
collected during the SITE demonstration with respect to 
meeting project objectives. Attainment of project primary 
objectives is described in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, while 
secondary objectives are provided by treatment system in 
Sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4. Solids handling and disposal for 
each treatment system is discussed in Section 2.5.5. 

Preliminary evaluation of the influent, effluent, and 4-day 
average effluent metals data included an assessment of data 
characteristics through quantitative and graphical analysis. 
Influent, effluent, and 4-day average effluent concentrations 
for the 10 metals of interest for each lime treatment system are 
presented in Tables B-l through B-3 of Appendix B. 
Summary statistics calculated for these data sets include: 
mean, median, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation, 
which are presented in Tables B-4 through B-6 of Appendix 
B. Minimum and maximum concentrations are also presented. 

Summary statistics for influent, effluent, and 4-day average 
effluent data were determined using Analyze-It Excel 
(Analyze-It 2004) and ProUCL (EPA 2004) statistical 
software. In addition, frequency, box-and-whisker, and 
probability plots were prepared to identify data characteristics 
and relationships, evaluate data fit to a distribution (for 
example, normal or lognormal), and to identify anomalous 
data points or outliers for the 10 target metals for each of the 
lime treatment systems. The results of statistical plotting 
showed no significant outliers in the influent, effluent, and 4- 
day average effluent data; therefore, no data were rejected 
from the data sets. The statistical plots also showed the metals 
influent and effluent concentrations to be normally distributed. 
Statistical plots are documented in the Technology Evaluation 
Report Data Summary (Tetra Tech 2004). 


2.5.1 Primary> Objective No.l: Evaluation of 

Metals Removal Efficiencies 

The evaluation of the lime treatment systems focused on two 
primary objectives. The first objective was to determine the 
removal efficiencies for the primary metals of concern and the 
secondary water quality indicator metals. To successfully 
calculate removal efficiencies for each metal, influent 
concentrations must be significantly different than effluent 
concentrations. Based on preliminary statistical plots 
described in Section 2.5, the influent and effluent metals data 
sets were found to be normally distributed; therefore a paired 
Student’s-t test (as described in EPA guidance [EPA 2000]) 
was used to determine if the influent and effluent 
concentrations were statistically different. For this statistical 
evaluation, if the P-value (test statistic) was less than the 0.05 
significance level (or 95 percent confidence level), then the 
two data sets were considered statistically different. With a 
few exceptions, influent and effluent concentrations from each 
lime treatment system for the 10 metals were found to be 
statistically different (P-value was less than 0.05), and for 
these metals, removal efficiencies were calculated. Tables 2-2 
through 2-4 present the average and range of removal 
efficiencies for filtered influent and effluent samples collected 
from each treatment system during the SITE demonstration 
and also the P-value for the paired Student’s-t test analysis. 
The average influent and effluent metals concentrations for 
each treatment system are also presented. Where influent and 
effluent concentrations for a particular metal were not 
statistically different (P-value was greater than 0.05), removal 
efficiencies were not calculated for that metal, as indicated in 
the summary tables. In addition, where one or both 
concentrations for a metal were not detected in an individual 
influent/effluent data pair, those data points were not included 
in the determination of removal efficiencies. 

For both modes of active lime treatment system operation, the 
average removal efficiency for the primary target metals was 
99.6 percent over 20 sampling events, with the exception of 
lead at 74.6 to 78.3 percent removal. For the alkaline lagoon 
treatment system, the average removal efficiency for the 
primary target metals in the ARD was 99.2 percent over 
eight sampling events, with the exception of lead at 66.4 
percent removal and copper at 58.3 percent removal. Removal 
efficiencies for lead during biphasic and monophasic treatment 
and copper during alkaline lagoon treatment were less than 
other metals because the influent concentrations of these two 
metals were already near or below the EPA discharge 
standards and the systems were not optimized for removal of 
these metals at such low concentrations. In the case of 
selenium during active biphasic treatment and selenium and 
cadmium during alkaline lagoon treatment, removal 
efficiencies were not calculated because the influent and 
effluent metals concentrations were not statistically different. 


21 



Table 2-2. 2002 and 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation 


Target Metal 

Number of 
Sampling 
Events 

Average 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Average 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Paired 

Student’s-t test 
P-value' 

Average 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Range of Removal 
Efficiencies (%) 

Primary Target Metals 

Aluminum 

12/1 

381,000 

1,118 

<0.05 

99.7 

99.2 to 99.9 

Arsenic 

12/1 

2,239 

8.6 

<0.05 

99.6 

99.2 to 99.8 

Copper 

12/1 

2,383 

8.0 

<0.05 

99.7 

99.4 to 99.8 

Iron 

12/1 

461,615 

44.9 

<0.05 

100 

99.9 to 100 

Nickel 

12/1 

7,024 

34.2 

<0.05 

99.5 

99.2 to 99.9 

Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals 

Cadmium 

12/1 

54.4 

0.70 

<0.05 

98.7 

97.5 to 99.4 

Chromium 

12/1 

877 

5.7 

<0.05 

99.3 

93.8 to 99.9 

Lead 

12/1 

7.6 

2.0 

<0.05 

78.3 

69.2 to 86.7 

Selenium 

12/1 

4.3 

3.8 

0.65 

NC 

NC 

Zinc 

12/1 

1,469 

19.3 

<0.05 

98.7 

97.4 to 99.4 

1 A P-value less t 
pg/L = Microgra 
% = Percent 

1 NC = Not calcuh 

ran 0.05 indicates that influent and efl 
m per liter 

ited as influent and effluent concentral 

luent data are statistically different 

ions were not statistically different 


Table 2-3. 2003 Removal Efficiencies for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation 


Target Metal 

Number of 
Sampling 
Events 

Average 

Influent 

Concentration 

(pg/L) 

Average 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Paired 

Student’s-t test 
P-value 1 

Average 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

— ■ 1 ■ . ■ —■■.. — ■ 

Range of Removal 
Efficiencies (%) 

Primary Target Metals 

Aluminum 

7 

107,800 

633 

<0.05 

99.5 

99.0 to 99.8 

Arsenic 

7 

3,236 

6.3 

<0.05 

99.8 

99.7 to 99.9 

Copper 

7 

2,152 

3.1 

<0.05 

99.4 

99.0 to 99.7 

Iron 

7 

456,429 

176 

<0.05 

100.0 

99.9 to 100.0 

Nickel 

7 

2,560 

46.8 

<0.05 

97.9 

95.7 to 99.3 

Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals 

Cadmium 

7 

26.1 

0.2 

<0.05 

99.1 

98.4 to 99.7 

Chromium 

7 

341 

3.0 

<0.05 

99.0 

95.6 to 99.8 

Lead 

7 

6.2 

1.6 

<0.05 

74.6 

48.3 to 89.8 

Selenium 

7 

16.6 

2.1 

<0.05 

93.1 

91.0 to 94.4 

Zinc 

7 

538 

5.6 

<0.05 

98.9 

97.7 to 99.6 


1 A P-value less than 0.05 indicates that influent and effluent data are statistically different 

I Hg/L = micrograms per liter 
% = Percent 


22 






















































































































Table 2-4. 2002 Removal Efficiencies for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 


Target Metal 

Number of 
Sampling 
Events 

Average 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Average 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(pg/L) 

Paired 

Student’s-t test 
P-value' 

Average 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Range of Removal 
Efficiencies (%) 

Primary Target Metals 

1 Aluminum 

8 

31.988 

251 

<0.05 

99.2 

98.0 to 99.5 

Arsenic 

8 

519 

5.8 

<0.05 

98.9 

97.6 to 99.5 

Copper 

8 

13.5 

5.5 

<0.05 

58.3 

27.7 to 74.5 

Iron 

8 

391,250 

148 

<0.05 

100 

99.9 to 100 

Nickel 

8 

1,631 

22.6 

<0.05 

98.6 

97.2 to 99.1 

Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals 

Cadmium 

8 

0.2988 

0.4 

0.12 

NC 

NC 

Chromium 

8 

19.3 

2.3 

<0.05 

88.5 

83.1 to 92.3 

Lead 

8 

5.1 

1.7 

<0.05 

66.4 

37.7 to 78.9 

Selenium 

8 

3.3 

3.2 

0.92 

NC 

NC 

Zinc 

8 

356 

14.2 

<0.05 

96.0 

90.6 to 98.2 

1 A P-value less than 0.05 indicates that influent and effluent data are statistically different 

NC = Not calculated as influent and effluent concentrations were not statistically different 
gg/L = micrograms per liter 
% = Percent 


Table 2-5. EPA Project Discharge Standards 


! Target Metals 

Maximum (a) 

0*g/L) 

Average(b) 

(Pg /L ) 

Primary Target Metals 

Aluminum 

4,000 

2,000 

Arsenic 

340 

150 

Copper 

26 

16 

Iron 

2,000 

1.000 

Nickel 

840 

94 

Secondary Water Quality Indicator Metals 

Cadmium 

9.0 

4.0 

Chromium 

970 

310 

Lead 

136 

5.0 

Selenium 

No Standard 

5.0 

Zinc 

210 

210 

(a) Based on a daily composite of three grab samples 

(b) Based on the average of four consecutive daily composite samples 
pn/L = microgramsjDerJiter 


2.5.2 Primary Objective No.2: Comparison of 
Effluent Data to Discharge Standards 

The second primary objective was to determine whether the 
concentrations of the primary metals of concern in the effluent 
from the lime treatment systems were below EPA discharge 
standards, as presented in Table 2-5. In addition, the 
attainment of discharge standards for the secondary water 
quality parameters was evaluated. 


Although direct comparisons of the effluent data to the 
maximum and 4-day average discharge standards show that 
none of the concentrations exceeded the discharge standards, 
additional statistical tests were used to evaluate whether 
metals concentrations in the effluent streams were statistically 
different from the maximum daily discharge standards. Based 
on preliminary statistical plots described in Section 2.5, the 
metals effluent and 4-day average effluent concentrations were 
shown to be normally distributed; therefore, the one-sample 
parametric Student’s-t test (as described in EPA guidance 
[EPA 2000]) was used in the comparison of the metals 
concentrations to the discharge standards. The one-sample 
parametric Student’s-t test was used to determine if metals 
effluent and 4-day average effluent concentrations were 
significantly greater than the discharge standards (alternative 
or H a hypothesis). The maximum daily discharge standards, 
maximum detected effluent concentrations, and average 
effluent concentrations are summarized in Table 2-6 and the 4- 
day average discharge standards and 4-day average effluent 
concentrations are summarized in Table 2-7. For the metals 
data sets that could be analyzed, the 1-tailed P-values (test 
statistic) for all of the tests were above the 0.05 significance 
level (or 95 percent confidence level) required for acceptance 
of the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, none of the effluent 
data for the lime treatment systems were considered 
significantly greater than the maximum daily discharge 
standards or the 4-day average discharge standards for any of 
the 10 target metals. There is no maximum daily discharge 
standard for selenium; therefore, there are no statistical results 
for selenium in Table 2-6. 


23 



























































































In addition, cadmium was non-detect in all of the effluent 
samples collected from the monophasic lime treatment system; 
therefore, there are no statistical results for selenium in either 
Table 2-6 or 2-7 for the monophasic system. 


Although the influent concentrations for the primary target 
metals were up to 3,000 fold above EPA discharge standards, 
both lime treatment systems were successful in reducing the 
concentrations of the primary target metals in the AMD and 
ARD to between 4 and 20 fold below the discharge standards. 


Table 2-6. Results of the Student’s-t Test Statistical Analysis for Maximum Daily Effluent Data 


Analyte 

Maximum Daily 
Discharge Limit 

(Pg /L ) 

Maximum Detected 
Concentration in 
Effluent Stream 

iHSTd 

Average 

Concentration in 
Effluent Stream 

tesM 

1-Tailed P-value 
(Effluent Data > 
Maximum Daily 
Discharge Limit) 

Effluent Concentration 
Significantly Greater 
than Maximum Daily 
Discharge Limit? 

(Hg/L) 

Alkaline Lagoon Student’s-t test Com 

parisons 

Aluminum 

4,000 

639 

251 

1.0 

No 

Arsenic 

340 

13 

5.8 

1.0 

No 

Cadmium 

9 

0.70 

0.38 

1.0 

No 

Chromium 

970 

3.8 

2.3 

1.0 

No 

Copper 

26 

8.6 

5.5 

1.0 

No 

Iron 

2,000 

163 

148 

1.0 

No 

Lead 

136 

3.3 

1.7 

1.0 

No 

Nickel 

840 

47 

23 

1.0 

No 

Selenium 

No Standard 

6.3 

3.2 

Not Tested 

Not Tested 

Zinc 

210 

33 

14 

1.0 

No 

Biphasic Student’s-t test Comparisons 

Aluminum 

4,000 

2,860 

1,118 

1.0 

No 

Arsenic 

340 

12 

8.6 

1.0 

No 

Cadmium 

9 

1.3 

0.71 

1.0 

No 

Chromium 

970 

46 

5.7 

1.0 

No 

Copper 

26 

13 

8.1 

1.0 

No 

Iron 

2,000 

243 

45.9 

1.0 

No 

Lead 

136 

4.4 

2.0 

1.0 

No 

Nickel • 

840 

55 

34.2 

1.0 

No 

Selenium 

No Standard 

7.3 

3.8 

Not Tested 

Not Tested 

Zinc 

210 

38 

19.3 

1.0 

No 

Monophasic Student’s-t test Comparisons 

Aluminum 

4,000 

1,090 

633 

1.0 

No 

Arsenic 

340 

11 

6.3 

1.0 

No 

Cadmium 

9 

ND 

N/A 

Not Tested 

Not Tested 

Chromium 

970 

12 

3.0 

1.0 

No 

Copper 

26 

5.4 

3.1 

1.0 

No 

Iron 

2,000 

350 

176 

1.0 

No 

Lead 

136 

4.5 

1.6 

1.0 

No 

Nickel 

840 

69 

47 

1.0 

No 

Selenium 

No Standard 

2.6 

2.1 

Not Tested 

Not Tested 

Zinc 

210 

12 

5.6 

1.0 

No 

pg/L = micrograms per liter 

ND = Not detected (all results for cadmium in the effluent samples during monophasic operations were non-detect) 

N/A = Not_a££licable 


24 














































































Table 2-7. Results of the Student’s-t Test Statistical Analysis for 4-Dav Average Effluent Data 


Analyte 

4-Day Average 
Discharge Limit 

iPg /L ) 

Maximum 

4-Day Average 
Concentration in 
Effluent Stream 
(Mg/l) 

Average 

4-Day Average 
Concentration in 
Effluent Stream 

Q*b/L) 

1-Tailed P-value 
(Effluent Data > 
Maximum Daily 
Discharge Limit) 

Effluent Concentration 
Significantly Greater 
than Maximum Daily 
Discharge Limit? 

(Hg/L) 

Alkaline Lagoon Student’s-t test Com 

parisons 

Aluminum 

2,000 

308 

226 

1.0 

No 

Arsenic 

150 

6.9 

5.3 

1.0 

No 

Cadmium 

4 

0.4 

0.4 

1.0 

No 

Chromium 

310 

2.6 

2.2 

1.0 

No 

Copper 

16 

6.3 

5.3 

1.0 

No 

Iron 

1,000 

203 

140 

1.0 

No 

Lead 

5 

2.1 

1.7 

1.0 

No 

Nickel 

94 

24.9 

20.7 

1.0 

No 

Selenium 

5 

3.7 

3.1 

0.9996 

No 

Zinc 

210 

18.4 

12.4 

1.0 

No 

Biphasic Student's-t test Comparisons 

Aluminum 

2,000 

1,820 

971 

0.9999 

No 

Arsenic 

150 

9.8 

8.8 

1.0 

No 

Cadmium 

4 

1.0 

0..77 

1.0 

No 

Chromium 

310 

13.4 

7.1 

1.0 

No 

Copper 

16 

9.6 

8.4 

1.0 

No 

Iron 

1,000 

94.3 

52.4 

1.0 

No 

Lead 

5 

2.4 

1.8 

1.0 

No 

Nickel 

94 

498 

35.5 

1.0 

No 

Selenium 

5 

4.6 

3.9 

1.0 

No 

Zinc 

210 

27.5 

20.0 

1.0 

No 

Monophasic Student’s-t test Comparisons 

Aluminum 

2,000 

765 

579 

0.9999 

No 

Arsenic 

150 

8.9 

6.7 

1.0 

No 

Cadmium 

4 

ND 

N/A 

Not Tested 

No 

Chromium 

310 

3.9 

2.7 

1.0 

No 

Copper 

16 

3.3 

2.5 

1.0 

No 

Iron 

1,000 

250 

202 

1.0 

No 

Lead 

5 

1.8 

1.2 

0.9998 

No 

Nickel 

94 

67.7 

53.9 

0.9928 

No 

Selenium 

5 

2.2 

2.0 

1.0 

No 

Zinc 

210 

6.5 

5.0 

1.0 

No 

pg/L = micrograms per liter 

ND = Not detected (all results for cadmium in the effluent samples during monophasic operations were non-detect) 

N/A = Not a££ljcable 


In addition, the concentrations of the secondary water quality 
indicator metals in the AMD and ARD were reduced to below 
the discharge standards. In both cases, statistical analysis 
showed that the effluent and 4-day average effluent 
concentrations did not exceed the discharge standards. 
Process water added during treatment accounted for less than 
one-half of one percent of total flow and did not provide 
treatment through dilution. These results demonstrate that the 
lime treatment systems are extremely effective at neutralizing 
acidity and reducing metals content in AMD and ARD to meet 
EPA discharge standards for the Leviathan Mine site. 


2.5.3 Secondary> Objectives for Evaluation of 
Active Lime Treatment System Unit 
Operations 

The evaluation of the active lime treatment system at 
Leviathan Mine also included evaluation of four secondary 
objectives. These secondary objectives included: 

• Documentation of operating parameters and 
assessment of critical operating conditions necessary 
to optimize system performance. 


25 









































































• Monitoring the general chemical characteristics of 
the AMD or ARD water as it passes through the 
treatment system. 

• Evaluating operational performance and efficiency of 
solids separation systems. 

• Documenting solids transfer, dewatering, and 
disposal operations. 

Documentation of operating conditions, discussion of reaction 
chemistry, evaluation of metals removal by unit operation, and 
evaluation of solids separation are presented in the following 
sections. The data presented were compiled from observations 
during the demonstration as well as data summarized in the 

2002 Year-End Report for Leviathan Mine (RWQCB 2003), 

2003 Year-End Report for Leviathan Mine (RWQCB 2004), 
and the 2003 Early Response Action Completion Report for 
Leviathan Mine (ARCO 2004). Solids characterization and 
handling is documented in Section 2.5.5. 

2.5.3.1 Operating Conditions 

Operating conditions for the active lime treatment system in 
biphasic and monophasic modes are described below. 

Biphasic Operations. Operation of the active lime treatment 
system in biphasic mode (Figure 1-2) involved pumping AMD 
out of the retention ponds to the head of the treatment system. 
Influent was pumped from Pond 1 and discharged into the 
Phase 1 reaction tank at an average flow rate of 638.7 L/min. 
Forty-five percent lime slurry was injected into the reaction 
tank at an average dose rate of 1,288 milliliter per minute 
(mL/min) to increase the pH to approximately 2.8 to 3.0. In 
this pH range, a portion of the dissolved ferrous iron is 
oxidized to ferric iron and precipitates out of solution (as 
ferric hydroxide) along with the majority of dissolved arsenic. 
Process water was drawn from upper Leviathan Creek to make 
up the lime slurry used in the treatment process. The 
AMD/lime slurry was sparged with compressed air at 2,400 
L/min and mixed with a stirrer at 60 revolutions per minute 
(rpm) for approximately one hour. Following arsenic-rich iron 
precipitate formation, the AMD slurry was gravity drained 
into the Phase I flash/floc mixing tank where approximately 
25 mL/min of Superfloe A-1849 RS (polymer) flocculent was 
added to promote aggregation of the arsenic-rich iron 
precipitate into a settleable floe. The AMD slurry was then 
discharged into the Phase I clarifier for floe settling and 
thickening. A floe settling rate of 23.1 mL/min was observed 
in a 1,000 milliliter (mL) Imhoff cone, well within the clarifier 
average HRT of 59 minutes. Approximately 19 L/min of 
solids were recycled from the Phase I clarifier to the Phase I 
reaction tank to provide seed for particle nucleation. Phase 1 
of the treatment process occurred in an average HRT of 124.4 
minutes. The thickened arsenic-rich iron solids were 
periodically pumped from the bottom of the Phase I clarifier 
into sludge holding tanks at an average rate of 11.3 L/min, and 
then into a batch filter press for dewatering. The thickened 
sludge was pressed twice per day for up to 8 hours, generating 


a total 1,320 kilogram (kg) of dry filter cake. Decant from the 
filter press was discharge to the Phase II reaction tank at an 
average rate of 11.6 L/min during pressing operations. 

Supernatant from the Phase I clarifier was gravity drained into 
the Phase II reaction tank for additional lime treatment of 
remaining acidity and metals. Forty-five percent lime slurry 
was injected into the Phase II reaction tank at an average dose 
rate of 2,289 mL/min to increase the pH to approximately 7.9 
to 8.2. The AMD/lime slurry was sparged with compressed 
air at 2,400 L/min and mixed with a stirrer at 60 rpm for 
approximately one hour. Following precipitate formation, the 
slurry was gravity drained into the Phase II flash/floc mixing 
tank where approximately 44 mL/min of polymer flocculent 
was added to promote aggregation of the precipitate into a 
settleable floe. The AMD slurry was then discharged into the 
Phase II clarifier for floe growth and partial thickening; 
however, floe was not settled in the clarifier. Instead, the 
slurry was pumped at an average flow rate of 638.7 L/min 
from the bottom of the Phase II clarifier to the pit clarifier for 
extended settling. A floe settling rate of 21.1 mL/min was 
observed in a 1,000 mL Imhoff cone, well within the clarifier 
average HRT of 59 minutes. Phase II of the treatment process 
occurred in an average HRT of 124.4 minutes. The pit 
clarifier provided an additional 79 hours (on average) of HRT 
for dissolution and reaction of any remaining lime with 
dissolved metals, oxidation and precipitation of residual 
ferrous iron, and precipitation of floe. Unsettled floe was 
captured on a silt screen near the discharge structure. An 
adjustable standpipe was used to control clarifier water 
elevation and HRT. On average, the pit clarifier captured 
5,544 kg of dry solids per day at an average flow rate of 638.7 
L/min. A summary of the system operational parameters is 
presented in Table 2-8. 


Table 2-8. Biphasic Unit Operations Parameters 


Parameter 

Units 

Range 

Average 

System Influent Flow Rate 

(L/min) 

586.7 to 662.4 

638.7 

Phase I Lime Dosage Rate 

(mL/min) 

1,183 to 1,335 

1,288 

Phase I Reaction Time 

(min) 

64.5 to 57.1 

59.3 

Phase I Aeration Rate 

(L/min) 

2,400 

2,400 

Phase I Flocculent Dosage Rate 

(mL/min) 

22.9 to 25.9 

24.9 

Phase I Solids Recycle Rate 

(L/min) 

18.9 

18.9 

Phase I Solids Settling Rate 

(mL/min) 

23.1 

23.1 

Phase 1 Residence Time 

(min) 

135.5 to 120 

124.4 

Filter Press Decant Rate 

(L/min) 

11.6 

11.6 

Filter Cake Generation Rate 

(kg/day) 

1,320.1 

1,320.1 

Phase II Lime Dosage Rate 

(mL/min) 

2,103 to 2,374 

2,289 

Phase II Reaction Time 

(min) 

64.5 to 57.1 

59.3 

Phase II Aeration Rate 

(L/min) 

2,400 

2,400 

Phase II Flocculent Dosage Rate 

(mL/min) 

40 to 45.2 

43.6 

Phase II Clarifier Solids Settling Rate 

(mL/min) 

21.1 

21.1 

Phase II Hydraulic Residence Time 

(min) 

135.5 to 120 

124.4 

Pit Clarifier Solids Accumulation Rate 

(kg/day) 

5,093 to 5750 

5,544.2 

Pit Clarifier Residence Time 

(hr) 

86 to 76.2 

79 

System Effluent Flow Rate 

(L/min) 

227.1 to 908.4 

681.3 

hr = hour min = Minute 

kg/day = Kilogram per day mL/min = Milliliter per minute 

L/min = Liter per minute 


26 
































Monophasic Operations. The active lime treatment system 
operated in the monophasic mode (Figure 1-3) utilizes the 
same process equipment as the system operated in biphasic 
mode; however, the precipitation process results in a single 
output stream of metals-laden precipitate that is thickened in 
the Phase II clarifier and dewatered using the batch filter 
press. Other changes between operations include a lower 
influent flow rate of up to 246 L/min (due to HRT and 
thickening limitations of the Phase II clarifier), a lower lime 
dosage rate, and a difference in the makeup of the source 
water. Operation of the active lime treatment system in 
monophasic mode involved pumping low arsenic content 
ARD (50 percent from the CUD and 17.6 percent from Delta 
Seep) and high-arsenic content AMD (32.4 percent from Adit 
No.5) to the head of the treatment system. The blended 
influent was pumped to the Phase I reaction tank at an average 
flow rate of 222.6 L/min. Forty-five percent lime slurry was 
injected into the reaction tank at an average dose rate of 
228.8 mL/min to increase the pH from 3.4 to 5.0. The purpose 
of this initial lime addition was to extend the period of lime 
dissolution and reaction with target metals. The slurry was 
sparged with compressed air at 2,400 L/min and mixed with a 
stirrer at 60 rpm for 170 minutes. The first phase of the 
monophasic treatment process occurred in an average HRT of 
357 minutes. 

The partially treated slurry was gravity drained from the 
Phase I clarifier into the Phase II reaction tank for additional 
lime treatment of remaining acidity and metals. Forty-five 
percent lime slurry was injected into the Phase II reaction tank 
at an average dose rate of 122.1 mL/min to increase the pH to 
approximately 7.3 to 7.5. The ARD/lime slurry was sparged 
with compressed air at 2,400 L/min and mixed with a stirrer at 
60 rpm for 170 minutes. Following precipitate formation, the 
slurry was gravity drained into the Phase II flash/floc mixing 
tank where approximately 7 mL/min of polymer flocculent 
was added to promote aggregation of the precipitate into a 
settleable floe. The ARD slurry was then discharged into the 
Phase II clarifier for floe settling and thickening. A floe 
settling rate of 42.9 mL/min was observed in a 1,000 mL 
Imhoff cone, well within the clarifier average HRT of 
170 minutes. The second phase of the monophasic treatment 
process occurred in an average HRT of 357 minutes. The 
thickened solids were periodically pumped from the bottom of 
the Phase II clarifier into sludge holding tanks at an average 
rate of 11.3 L/min, and then into a batch filter press for 
dewatering. The thickened sludge was pressed twice per day 
for up to 8 hours, generating a total 431 kg of dry filter cake. 
Decant from the filter press was discharge to the Phase II 
reaction tank at an average rate of 11.8 L/min during pressing 
operations. A summary of the system operational parameters 
is presented in Table 2-9. 

2.5.3.2 Reaction Chemistry 

The reaction chemistry for the active lime treatment system in 
biphasic and monophasic modes is described below. 


Table 2-9. Monophasic Unit Operation Parameters 


Parameter 

Units 

Range 

Average 

System Influent Flow Rate 

(L/min) 

210.5 to 246 

222.6 

Phase I Lime Dosage Rate 

(mL/min) 

216 to 253.2 

228.8 

Phase I Reaction Time 

(min) 

179.8 to 153.9 

170 

Phase I Aeration Rate 

(L/min) 

2,400 

2,400 

Phase I Hydraulic Residence Time 

(min) 

377.6 to 323.1 

357.1 

Phase 11 Lime Dosage Rate 

(mL/min) 

115.4 to 134.7 

122.1 

Phase 11 Reaction Time 

(min) 

179.8 to 153.9 

170 

Phase II Aeration Rate 

(L/min) 

2,400 

2,400 

Phase II Flocculent Dosage Rate 

(mL/min) 

6.4 to 7.4 

6.7 

Phase II Solids Settling Rate 

(mL/min) 

42.9 

42.9 

Phase II Hydraulic Residence Time 

(min) 

377.6 to 323.1 

357.1 

Filter Press Decant Rate 

(L/min) 

11.8 

11.8 

Filter Cake Generation Rate 

(kg/day) 

408 to 476 

431 

System Effluent Flow Rate 

(L/min) 

210.5 to 246 

222.6 

kg/day = Kilogram per day min = Minute 

L/min = Liter per minute mL/min = Milliliter per minute 


Biphasic Reaction Chemistry . Changes in AMD chemistry 
within the Phase I reaction tank are driven by the addition of 
lime and aeration of the AMD slurry. Lime addition 
consumes mineral acidity, raises solution pH, shifts the iron 
stability field toward ferric iron, and provides a source of 
hydroxide ion for ferric hydroxide formation. During 
precipitation, a large portion of the arsenic adsorbs to the 
ferric hydroxide precipitate. Aeration of the AMD slurry 
oxidizes ferrous iron to ferric iron and provides a source of 
dissolved oxygen for iron oxide formation, reducing the 
overall lime requirement. During Phase I of the biphasic 
process, reaction pH increased from 2.75 to 3.37 after lime 
addition, ferrous iron decreased from 8.2 to 7.8 mg/L, total 
iron decreased 15 percent from 558 to 500 mg/L, and arsenic 
decreased 94 percent from 2.93 to 0.171 mg/L. The data 
indicate that the majority of the iron is already in the ferric 
oxidation state, a small quantity of ferrous iron was oxidized 
to ferric iron, and arsenic co-precipitated with the ferric 
hydroxide. The data also indicate that mineral acidity was 
reduced as evidenced by an increase in pH and a decrease in 
solution ORP. Excess sulfate was removed from solution in 
the presence of excess calcium to form gypsum. 

Additional changes in AMD slurry chemistry were observed 
in the Phase I clarifier, primarily due to the continued 
dissolution and reaction of lime with dissolved metals as well 
as settling of metal hydroxide and oxyhydroxide precipitates 
within the clarifier. Clarifier effluent pH increased from 3.37 
to 3.73, ferrous iron decreased from 7.8 to 5.5 mg/L, total iron 
decreased 74 percent from 500 to 128 mg/L, and arsenic 
decreased another 29 percent from 0.171 to 0.121 mg/L. Field 
and analytical laboratory chemical parameters documenting 
Phase I reaction chemistry are provided in Table 2-10. 

Changes in AMD chemistry within the Phase II reaction tank 
is also driven by the addition of lime and aeration of the AMD 
slurry. Reaction pH increased from 3.73 to 6.84 after excess 


27 




























Table 2-10. Biphasic Phase I Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 




Phase I Reactor 

Phase I Clarifier 

Parameter 

Unit 

Influent 

Effluent 

Change 

Influent 

Effluent 

Change 

pH 

(SU) 

2.75 

3.37 

0.62 

3.37 

3.73 

0.36 

Oxidation Reduction Potential 

(mV) 

504 

428 

-76 

428 

396 

-32 

Total Iron (dissolved) 

(mg/L) 

553 

83.7 

-469.3 

83.7 

61.8 

-21.9 

Ferrous Iron 

(mg/L) 

8.2 

7.8 

-0.4 

7.8 

5.5 

-2.3 

Specific Conductance 

(pmhos/cm) 

4,407 

4,045 

-362 

4,045 

3,645 

-400 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(mg/L) 

4.3 

4.5 

0.2 

4.5 

4.4 

-0.1 

T emperature 

(°C) 

19.9 

20.8 

0.9 

20.8 

20.8 

0 

Sulfate 

(mg/L) 

4,830 

4,040 

-790 

4,040 

4,130 

90 

Total Alkalinity 

(mg/L) 

< 0.002 

<2 

NC 

<2 

<2 

NC 

Total Dissolved Solids 

(mg/L) 

8,710 

6,360 

-2,350 

6.360 

6,490 

130 

pmhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter 
°C = Degree Celsius 

mV = Millivolt 

mg/L = Milligram per liter 


NC = Not calculated 

SU = Standard unit 


lime addition, ferrous iron decreased 71 percent from 5.5 to 
1.6 mg/L, total iron decreased 99 percent from 61.8 to 
0.285 mg/L, and arsenic decreased 92 percent from 0.121 to 
0.089 mg/L. The data indicate that the majority of the iron 
was converted to the ferric oxidation state, arsenic continued 
to co-precipitate with the ferric hydroxide, and that 54 to 
99 percent of all other metals were precipitated from solution 
as metal hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. The remaining 
mineral acidity was completely consumed by excess lime in 
solution, yielding a bicarbonate alkalinity of 7 mg/L. Excess 
sulfate continued to be removed from solution in the presence 
of excess calcium to form gypsum. 

Additional changes in AMD slurry chemistry were observed 
in the pit clarifier, primarily due to the continued dissolution 
and reaction of lime with dissolved metals as well as settling 
of metal hydroxide and oxyhydroxide precipitates within the 
pit clarifier. The extended HRT in the pit clarifier allowed 
between 16 and 80 percent removal of dissolved metals after 
initial settling. Total and ferrous iron was no longer detected 
in solution. Clarifier effluent pH increased from 6.84 to 8.07 
within the Phase II plate clarifier (pass through only) then 
decreased to 7.64 in the discharge from the pit clarifier. 
Bicarbonate alkalinity initially increased to 19.8 mg/L within 
the Phase II plate clarifier, before decreasing to 12.8 mg/L in 
the pit clarifier effluent. Approximately 30 percent of the 
combined hydrated lime dose 4.45 gram per liter (g/L) was 
used to neutralize acidity, while the remainder of the dissolved 
lime was used for formation of metal hydroxide precipitates 
and alkalinity. A small portion of the lime never dissolves, 
remaining as inert solid. Field and analytical laboratory 
chemical parameters documenting Phase I reaction chemistry 
are provided in Table 2-11. 

Monophasic Reaction Chemistry . Monophasic operation of 
the active lime treatment system differs from biphasic 
operation in that arsenic is not being selectively removed from 
solution prior to precipitation of all other metals. In addition, 
the Phase I reaction tank is used during Monophasic 
operations, but only to increase the time available for 


dissolution of lime. Finally, the source water treated was a 
blend of ARD and AMD. During Phase I of the monophasic 
process, reaction pH increased from 3.44 to 5.1 after addition 
of a large dose of lime, ferrous iron decreased from 8.2 to 
6.4 mg/L, total iron decreased 58.5 percent from 485 to 
201 mg/L, and 38 to 99 percent of all other metals (primarily 
aluminum, arsenic, copper, chromium) were precipitated from 
solution as metal hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. The data 
indicate that the majority of the iron is already in the ferric 
oxidation state, a small quantity of ferrous iron was oxidized 
to ferric iron, and mineral acidity was reduced as evidenced by 
an increase in pH and a decrease in solution ORP. Excess 
sulfate was removed from solution in the presence of excess 
calcium to form gypsum. 

Changes in chemistry within the Phase II reaction tank was 
driven by the addition of a second small dose of lime to the 
ARD/AMD slurry. Reaction pH increased from 5.04 to 7.28 
after excess lime addition, ferrous iron was completely 
oxidized to ferric iron, total iron decreased 99 percent from 
201 to 2.16 mg/L, and 77 to 99 percent of all remaining metals 
were precipitated from solution as metal hydroxides and 
oxyhydroxides. The remaining mineral acidity was 
completely consumed by excess lime in solution, yielding a 
bicarbonate alkalinity of 47.6 mg/L. Excess sulfate was not 
substantially reduced, likely due to the limited amount of 
calcium available for super saturation of the solution with 
respect to gypsum. 

Additional changes in ARD/AMD slurry chemistry were 
observed in the Phase II clarifier, primarily due to the 
continued dissolution and reaction of lime with dissolved 
metals as well as settling of metal hydroxide and 
oxyhydroxide precipitates within the clarifier. Clarifier 
influent pH changed substantially after the ARD/AMD slurry 
was discharged from the Phase II reactor, increasing from 7.28 
to 8.01. Sulfate dropped 80 mg/L prior to entering the 
clarifier, and another 150 mg/L prior to discharge. Both of 
these observations demonstrate that additional lime dissolution 


28 

























Table 2-11. Biphasic Phase II Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 


Parameter 

Unit 

Phase 11 Reactor 

Pit Clarifier 

Influent 

Effluent 

Change 

Influent 

Effluent 

Change 

pH 

(SU) 

3.73 

6.84 

3.11 

8.07 

7.64 

-0.43 

Oxidation Reduction Potential 

(mV) 

396 

227 

-169 

142 

143 

1 

Total Iron (dissolved) 

(mg/L) 

61.8 

0.285 

-61.5 

0.096 

<0.038 

-0.058 

Ferrous Iron 

(mg/L) 

5.5 

1.6 

-3.9 

<0.1 

<0.1 

0 

Specific Conductance 

(pmhos/cm) 

3,645 

3,765 

120 

3,500 

3,400 

-100 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(mg/L) 

4.4 

3.1 

-1.3 

3.3 

3.6 

0.3 

Temperature 

(°C) 

20.8 

20.5 

-0.3 

20.9 

21 

0.1 

Sulfate 

(mg/L) 

4,130 

2,890 

-1,240 

2,610 

2,520 

-90 

Total Alkalinity 

(mg/L) 

<2 

7 

7 

19.8 

12.8 

-7 

Total Dissolved Solids 

(mg/L) 

6,490 

3,960 

-2,530 

3,800 

3,670 

-130 


pmhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter mV = Millivolt SU = Standard unit 

°C = Degree Celsius_mg/L = Milligram per liter 


occurred and that gypsum formed with the dissolution of 
calcium into solution. Approximately 67 percent of the 
combined hydrated lime dose 1.29 g/L was used to neutralize 
acidity, while the remainder of the dissolved lime was used for 
formation of metal hydroxide precipitates and alkalinity. A 
small portion of the lime never dissolves, remaining as inert 
solid. Field and analytical laboratory chemical parameters 
documenting monophasic reaction chemistry are provided in 
Table 2-12. 

2.5.3.3 Metals Removal by Unit Operation 

Metals removal by each unit operation of the active lime 
treatment system is described below for both the biphasic and 
monophasic modes of operation. 

Biphasic Operations. Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc are the metals of 
concern in the AMD from the retention ponds. All of the 
dissolved metals of concern exceeded their discharge 
standards after lime addition, mixing, and air sparging in the 
Phase I reaction tank. Phase I reaction tank metals removal 
efficiencies ranged from -1.41 to 94.16 percent, with the 
majority of the mass removal associated with arsenic, 
chromium, and iron. All of the dissolved metals of concern 
exceeded their discharge standards after settling in the Phase I 
clarifier, with the exception of arsenic, which appears to have 
continued co-precipitation with iron. 

Following lime addition, mixing, and air sparging in the 
Phase II reaction tank, only dissolved lead and nickel 
exceeded their respective discharge standards. Phase II 
reaction tank removal efficiencies ranged from 54 to 
99.74 percent, with the majority of the mass removal 
associated with aluminum, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc. 
Almost all of the metals of concern met discharge standards in 
the pit clarifier after an extended residence time for lime 
dissolution, reaction, and precipitate settling. Aluminum 


exceeded the 4 day moving average discharge standard, but 
not the daily maximum standard due to a pH excursion above 
7.5. Aluminum typically reenters solution in a basic solution 
with low solution ionic strength. Treatment system removal 
efficiencies for the metals of concern ranged from 99.26 
percent for zinc to 99.99 percent for iron. A summary of unit 
operations concentration and removal efficiency data for the 
metals of concern is presented in Table 2-13 for both Phase I 
and Phase II unit operations. 

An evaluation of metals and sulfate load reduction was 
prepared for biphasic operations based on unit operations data 
collected on August 12, 2003. A total metals load of 1,287 kg 
and a sulfate load of 4,541 kg entered the active lime 
treatment system. A total of 524 kg of metals and 743 kg of 
sulfate were precipitated out of solution, following the 
addition of 1,507 kg of hydrated lime to the AMD in the Phase 
I reaction tank, leaving 1,207 kg of metals and 3,798 kg of 
sulfate in solution. The Phase I clarifier separated 498 kg of 
metals and 658 kg of sulfate from solution, allowing 1,234 kg 
of metals (1,131 kg in solution) to discharge to the Phase II 
reaction tank. A total of 1,527 kg of metal precipitate, 
gypsum, and undissolved hydrated lime (Phase I clarifier 
settled solids) was discharged to the filter press for 
dewatering, generating a filter cake containing 518.7 kg of 
metals and a filter press decant containing 10.8 kg of metals. 
The filter press decant was discharged to the Phase II reaction 
tank for additional metals removal. 

An additional 540 kg of metals and 1,166 kg of sulfate were 
precipitated out of solution, following addition of 2,680 kg of 
hydrated lime to the AMD slurry in the Phase II reaction tank, 
leaving 1,532 kg of metals and 2,717 kg of sulfate in solution. 
The Phase II clarifier was not used to separate metals from 
solution, instead serving as a retention tank for additional 
metals precipitate formation. A total of 7,188 kg of soluble 
metals, metal precipitate, gypsum, and undissolved hydrated 


29 


























Table 2-12. Monophasic Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 


Parameter 

Unit 

Phase I Reactor 

Phase II Reactor 

Phase II Clarifier 

Influent 

Effluent 

Change 

Influent 

Effluent 

Change 

Influent 

Effluent 

Change 

PH 

(SU) 

3.44 

5.1 

1.66 

5.04 

7.28 

2.24 

8.01 

7.91 

-0.1 

Redox Potential 

(mV) 

349 

101 

-248 

147 

33 

-114 

6 

5 

-1 

Total Iron 

(mg/L) 

485 

201 

-284 

201 

2.16 

-198.8 

0.232 

0.221 

-0.011 

Ferrous Iron 

(mg/L) 

8.2 

6.4 

-1.8 

3.2 

<0.1 

-3.2 

<0.1 

<0.1 

0 

Specific Conductance 

(gmhos/cm) 

2577 

2370 

-207 

2210 

2320 

110 

2155 

2247 

92 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(mg/L) 

4.5 

3.9 

-0.6 

4.7 

4.5 

-0.2 

4.2 

4.4 

0.2 

Temperature 

(°C) 

16 

16.4 

0.4 

17.4 

17.7 

0.3 

18.2 

15.9 

-2.3 

Sulfate 

(mg/L) 

2510 

2030 

-480 

2020 

2070 

50 

1990 

1840 

-150 

Total Alkalinity 

(mg/L) 

<2 

<2 

0 

<2 

47.6 

46.6 

47.6 

43 

-4.6 

Total Dissolved Solids 

(mg/L) 

4370 

3450 

-920 

3440 

3400 

-40 

3170 

3190 

20 


pmhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter mV = Millivolt SU = Standard unit 

°C = Degree Celsius_mg/L = Milligram per liter 


Table 2-13. Biphasic Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies 


Parameter 

Phase I Reactor 

Phase I Clarifier 

Phase II Reactor 

Pit Clarifier 

Influent 

(Pg/L) 

Effluent 

(gg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Effluent 

(Pg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Effluent 

(Pg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Influent 

(pg/L) 

Effluent 

(pg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Aluminum 

371,000 

347,000 

6.47 

335,000 

3.46 

878 

99.74 

2,950 

2,200 

25.42 

Arsenic 

2,930 

171 

94.16 

121 

29.24 

8.9 

92.64 

.6.1 

<7.7 

36.89 

Cadmium 

55.6 

51.2 

7.91 

52.3 

-2.15 

2.8 

94.65 

0.57 

0.35 

38.60 

Chromium 

1,000 

529 

47.10 

549 

-3.78 

4 

99.27 

5 

3.9 

22.00 

Copper 

2,210 

2,090 

5.43 

2,080 

0.48 

7.8 

99.63 

7.5 

<5.8 

61.33 

Iron 

553,000 

83,700 

84.86 

61,800 

26.16 

285 

99.54 

96.3 

<38.4 

80.06 

Lead 

1.7 

5.3 

-211.76 

15.0 

-183.02 

6.9 

54.00 

6.1 

4.4 

27.87 

Nickel 

6,490 

6,230 

4.01 

6,480 

-4.01 

399 

93.84 

45.9 

25 

45.53 

Selenium 

<2.6 

4.8 

-72.92 

<13 

-26.15 

<2.6 

80.00 

<2.6 

<2.6 

0.00 

Zinc 

1,420 

1,440 

-1.41 

1,490 

-3.47 

15.2 

98.98 

12.5 

10.4 

16.80 


% = Percent_pg/L - Microgram per liter 


lime was pumped out of the bottom of the Phase II clarifier up 
hill to the pit clarifier for final settling, generating 5,642 kg of 
clarifier solids. A total of 1,318 kg of metals (primarily 
calcium), 2,369 kg of sulfate, and 228 kg of suspended solids 
were discharge from the pit clarifier to Leviathan Creek. A 
total of 4,187 kg of hydrated lime was required to neutralize 
2,464 kg acidity (as hydrated lime) and precipitate 906 kg of 
metals (excluding added calcium) and 2,172 kg of sulfate from 
the AMD on August 12, 2003. 

Monophasic Operations. Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium, copper, iron, nickel, selenium, and zinc are the 
metals of concern in the combined AMD and ARD from the 
adit, PUD, CUD, and Delta Seep. All of the dissolved metals 
of concern, with the exception of chromium, exceeded their 
discharge standards after lime addition, mixing, and air 
sparging in the Phase I reaction tank. Phase I reaction tank 
removal efficiencies ranged from 38.77 to 99.42 percent, with 
the majority of the mass removal associated with aluminum, 
arsenic, chromium, copper, and iron. However, metals were 
not settled out of solution in the Phase I clarifier; instead the 
slurry was discharged to the Phase II reaction tank. Following 
lime addition, mixing, and air sparging in the Phase II reaction 
tank; only dissolved iron exceeded its discharge standard. 


Phase II reaction tank removal efficiencies ranged from 77.06 
to 99.47 percent, with the majority of the mass removal 
associated with aluminum, arsenic, nickel, and iron. Arsenic 
appears to have co-precipitated with iron in both the Phase I 
and Phase II reaction tanks. Additional aluminum and iron 
precipitation occurred in the flash/floc tank between the Phase 
II reaction tank and the Phase II clarifier. All of the metals of 
concern met discharge standards in the Phase II clarifier 
effluent. Treatment system removal efficiencies for the metals 
of concern ranged from 80.43 percent for lead to 99.95 percent 
for iron. A summary of unit operations concentration and 
removal efficiency data for the metals of concern is presented 
in Table 2-14. 

An evaluation of metals and sulfate load reduction was 
prepared for monophasic operations based on unit operations 
data collected on July 3, 2003. A total metals load of 294.3 kg 
and a sulfate load of 779.8 kg entered the active lime 
treatment system. A total of 119 kg of metals and 149 kg of 
sulfate were precipitated out of solution, following the 
addition of 260.7 kg of hydrated lime to the combined ARD 
and AMD in the Phase I reaction tank, leaving 293.3 kg of 
metals and 630.7 kg of sulfate in solution. The slurry passed 


30 






























































Table 2-14. Monophasic Unit Operation Removal Metals Efficiencies 


Parameter 

Phase I Reactor 

Phase II Reactor 

Phase II Clarifier 

Influent 

(Hg/L) 

Effluent 

(^g/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Influent 

(Mg/L) 

Effluent 

(Ug/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Influent 

(Pg/L) 

Effluent 

(Hg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Aluminum 

119,000 

4,360 

96.34 

4,360 

1,000 

77.06 

509 

584 

-14.73 

Arsenic 

3,470 

709 

79.57 

709 

17.6 

97.52 

5.7 

<9.7 

14.91 

Cadmium 

45.7 

15 

67.18 

15 

<0.16 

99.47 

<0.16 

<0.16 

0.00 

Chromium 

327 

1.9 

99.42 

1.9 

3.2 

-68.42 

0.79 

<0.67 

57.59 

Copper 

549 

52.7 

90.40 

52.7 

4.7 

91.08 

2 

<1.9 

52.50 

Iron 

485,000 

201,000 

58.56 

201.000 

2,160 

98.93 

232 

221 

4.74 

Lead 

2.3 

3.8 

-65.22 

3.8 

<0.9 

96.54 

<0.9 

<0.9 

0.00 

Nickel 

2,760 

1,690 

38.77 

1,690 

68.2 

95.96 

47.8 

41.8 

12.55 

Selenium 

29.4 

13 

55.78 

13 

<1.8 

93.08 

<1.8 

<1.8 

0.00 

Zinc 

583 

342 

41.34 

342 

12.7 

96.29 

7.8 

2.6 

66.67 

% = Percent pg/L = Microgram per liter 



through the Phase I clarifier with minimal precipitate settling 
and discharged into the Phase II reaction tank. An additional 
159.6 kg of metals was precipitated out of solution, following 
addition of 139.3 kg of hydrated lime to the ARD/AMD slurry 
in the Phase II reaction tank, leaving 261.7 kg of metals and 

643.1 kg of sulfate in solution. The sulfate load increased by a 
total of 15 kg within the Phase II reaction tank. The Phase II 
clarifier separated 141.6 kg of metals and 71.5 kg of sulfate 
from solution, allowing 279.7 kg of metals (primarily calcium) 
and 571.6 kg of sulfate to discharge to Leviathan Creek. A 
total of 439.5 kg of metal precipitate, gypsum, and 
undissolved hydrated lime (Phase II clarifier settled solids) 
was discharged to the filter press for dewatering, generating a 
filter cake containing 216.1 kg of metals and a filter press 
decant containing 5.7 kg of metals. The filter press decant 
was discharged to the Phase II reaction tank for additional 
metals removal. A total of 400 kg of hydrated lime was 
required to neutralize 300 kg acidity (as hydrated lime) and 
precipitate 190.9 kg of metals (excluding added calcium) and 

208.2 kg of sulfate from the AMD on July 3, 2003. 

2.5.3.4 Solids Separation 

Metals and solids removal by solids separation techniques 
used during the operation of the active lime treatment system 
is described below for both the biphasic and monophasic 
modes of operation. 

Biphasic Operations. Precipitate generated during operation 
of the active lime treatment system in biphasic mode is 
separated from AMD using plate clarifiers, a filter press, and a 
pit clarifier with extended hydraulic residence time. Phase I of 
the treatment process is optimized for precipitation of arsenic 
and iron from solution; therefore, Phase I solids separation 
techniques are focused on minimizing the mass of arsenic-rich 
hazardous waste requiring disposal. Over 67 percent of 
arsenic in solution was removed in the Phase I plate clarifier 
and over 99 percent of the arsenic was removed from the 
settled solids. Chromium, iron, and selenium were also 
precipitated from solution during Phase I of the treatment 


process. The Phase I plate clarifier removed over 99 percent 
of suspended solids from solution. Additional suspended 
solids removal could be achieved by adding more polymer 
during the flocculation process. The filter press concentrated 
arsenic, chromium, iron, selenium, and settled solids by 80 to 
99 percent. Metals and solids removal efficiencies for Phase I 
solids separation equipment are provided in Table 2-15. 

The Phase I clarifier operated with a HRT of 59 minutes, well 
within a solids settling time of 43 minutes. Metals and solids 
were concentrated between 120 and 3,250 percent in the 
Phase I clarifier. The clarifier operated with a 45 to 
60 centimeter thick sludge blanket with periodic transfer of 
settled solids (11.3 L/min for up to 7 minutes per hour 
[min/hr]) to the sludge holding tanks for dewatering with a 
filter press. Seed floe was provided to the Phase I reaction 
tank through the transfer of settled solids from the clarifier at 
19 L/min. .The filter press required approximately 8 hours per 
pressing with two pressings per day at a feed rate of 19 L/min, 
initially generating 11.6 L/min of decant that was discharged 
to the Phase II reaction tank. The time required for filter 
pressing could be reduced through generation of larger particle 
sizes during the flocculation and clarification process. The 
filter press generated 1,320 kg of cake per day with a moisture 
content ranging from 54 to 63 percent. Filter cake was 
dropped from the filter press into a roll-off bin for off-site 
disposal as a hazardous waste. 

Phase II of the treatment process is optimized for precipitation 
of the remaining metals from solution, generating a non- 
hazardous solid waste stream. The Phase II plate clarifier was 
not operated for solids thickening, serving as a tank for 
particle growth prior to extended settling in the pit clarifier. 
Particle growth in the plate clarifier provided an additional 13 
to 44 percent removal of dissolved metals (primarily 
aluminum and iron) from solution. Extended settling in the pit 
clarifier promoted removal of 96 to 99 percent of metals and 
suspended solids from solution. Effluent from the pit clarifier 
met EPA discharge criteria. Additional suspended solids 


31 





























Table 2-15. Biphasic Phase I and Phase II Solids Separation Efficiencies 



Phase I Clarifier 

Filter Press 

Phase 11 Clarifier 

Pit Clarifier 


Unfiltered 

Unfiltered 

Percent 

Unfiltered 

Unfiltered 

Percent 

Unfiltered 

Unfiltered 

Percent 

Unfiltered 

Percent 


Influent 

Effluent 

Removal 

Solids 

Effluent 

Removal 

Influent 

Effluent 

Removal 

Effluent 

Removal 

Parameter 

(Mfi/L) 

(W'L) 

(%) 

(Mi/L) 

(Mfi/L) 

(%) 

(Hg/L) 

(Ug/L) 

(%) 

(ne/L) 

(%) 

Aluminum 

361,000 

339,000 

6.09 

543,000 

61,100 

88.75 

305,000 

239,000 

21.64 

2,690 

98.87 

Arsenic 

2,110 

688 

67.39 

19,000 

35.3 

99.81 

698 

412 

40.97 

< 10.3 

97.50 

Cadmium 

53.2 

50.4 

5.26 

64.5 

31.0 

51.94 

45.8 

37.2 

18.78 

<0.39 

98.95 

Chromium 

973 

499 

48.72 

4,430 

16.6 

99.63 

461 

344 

25.38 

4.0 

98.84 

Copper 

2,200 

2,060 

6.36 

2,740 

375.00 

86.31 

1,740 

1,360 

21.84 

6.6 

99.51 

Iron 

500,000 

128,000 

74.40 

3,030,000 

8,980.00 

99.70 

124,000 

79,000 

36.29 

289 

99.63 

Lead 

6.5 

7.0 

-7.69 

42.3 

5.8 

86.29 

12.7 

7.1 

44.09 

6.0 

15.49 

Nickel 

6,430 

6,110 

4.98 

5,540 

3,650 

34.12 

5,530 

4,780 

13.56 

32.6 

99.32 

Selenium 

5.5 

3.0 

45.45 

< 13 

<2.6 

80.00 

<2.6 

<2.6 

0.00 

<2.6 

0.00 

Zinc 

1,450 

1,420 

2.07 

1,220 

766 

37.21 

1,300 

976 

24.92 

8.4 

99.14 

TSS 

3,660,000 

268,000 

99.99 

119,000,000 

67,000 

99.94 

6,990,000 

6,140,000 

12.16 

243,000 

96.04 


% = Percent _ pg/L = Microgram per liter 


removal could be achieved by adding more polymer during the 
flocculation process. Metals and solids removal efficiencies 
for Phase II solids separation equipment are provided in Table 
2-15. 

The Phase II plate clarifier operated with a HRT of 
59 minutes, well within a solids settling time of 47 minutes. 
However, the plate clarifier is unable to handle the solids load 
generated at the system treatment rate. Therefore the solids 
slurry was pumped out of the bottom of the plate clarifier and 
up hill for extended settling in the 3.1 million liter pit clarifier. 
The pit clarifier provided an average of 79 hours of HRT for 
dissolution and reaction of any remaining lime with metals 
and solids settling. Approximately 1 million liters of solids 
slurry were discharged to the pit clarifier each day, generating 
5,544 kg of solids. On average 23 centimeters of air dried 
sludge is deposited in the pit clarifier during a treatment 
season. Air dried, non-hazardous sludge is removed from the 
pit clarifier every three years and disposed of on site. 
Approximately six weeks was required to reduce the water 
content of the sludge from 97.5 to 80.3 percent moisture. 

Monophasic Operations . Precipitate generated during 
operation of the active lime treatment system in monophasic 
mode is separated from AMD using a plate clarifier and a 
filter press. Phase I process equipment was used to provide an 
initial bump in the pH of the combined ARD/AMD. The 
Phase I plate clarifier was not operated for solids thickening, 
serving as a tank for particle growth prior to discharge to the 
Phase II reaction tank. The Phase II plate clarifier removed 
between 83 and 99 percent of the metals and 99 percent of 
suspended solids from solution prior to supernatant discharge 
to Leviathan Creek. The filter press concentrated metals and 
settled solids by 99 percent. Metals and solids removal 
efficiencies for Phase II solids separation equipment are 
provided in Table 2-16. 

The Phase II clarifier operated with a HRT of 170 minutes, 
well within a solids settling time of 23.3 minutes. Metals and 


solids were concentrated between 720 and 2,770 in the 
Phase II clarifier. The clarifier operated with a 60 to 
75 centimeter thick sludge blanket with periodic transfer of 
settled solids (11.3 L/min for up to 7 min/hr) to the sludge 
holding tanks for dewatering with a filter press. The filter 
press required approximately 8 hours per pressing with two 
pressings per day at a feed rate of 19 L/min, initially 
generating 11.6 L/min of decant that was discharged to the 
Phase II reaction tank. The time required for filter pressing 
could be reduced through generation of larger particle sizes 
during the flocculation and clarification process. The filter 
press generated 431 kg of cake per day with a moisture 
content of 76 percent. Filter cake was dropped from the filter 
press into a roll-off bin for off-site disposal as a hazardous 
waste. 

2.5.4 Secondary Objectives for Evaluation of 
Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment 
System Unit Operations 

The evaluation of the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment 
system at Leviathan Mine also included evaluation of four 
secondary objectives (see Section 2.5.3). Documentation of 
operating conditions, discussion of reaction chemistry, 
evaluation of metals removal by unit operation, and evaluation 
of solids separation are presented in the following sections. 
The data presented were compiled from observations during 
the demonstration as well as data summarized in the 2002 
Early Response Action Completion Report for Leviathan Mine 
(ARCO 2003). Solids characterization and handling is 
documented in Section 2.5.5. 

2.5.4.1 Operating Conditions 

Operation of the alkaline lagoon treatment system (Figure 1-4) 
involved pumping ARD from the CUD to the head of the 
treatment system, adjacent to the settling lagoon. ARD was 


32 





























Table 2-16. Monophasic Solids Separation Efficiencies 


Parameter 

Phase II Clarif 

ler 

Filter Press 

Unfiltered 

Influent 

(Mg/L) 

Unfiltered 

Effluent 

(Mg/L) 

Percent 

Removal 

(%) 

Unfiltered 

Clarifier 

(Mg/L) 

Unfiltered 

Effluent 

(Mg/L) 

Percent 

Removal 

(%) 

Aluminum 

77,900 

910 

98.83 

632,000 

245 

99.96 

Arsenic 

1,850 

<15.9 

99.57 

16,100 

9.1 

99.94 

Cadmium 

24.6 

<0.16 

99.67 

220 

<0.16 

99.96 

Chromium 

213 

<1.7 

99.60 

1,800 

7.6 

99.58 

Copper 

330 

<2.5 

99.62 

2,750 

<1.9 

99.97 

Iron 

267,000 

1,360 

99.49 

2,500,000 

226 

99.99 

Lead 

2.7 

<0.9 

83.33 

74.8 

<0.9 

99.39 

Nickel 

1.860 

50.2 

97.30 

13,400 

60.8 

99.55 

Selenium 

16 

<1.8 

94.38 

<1.8 

<1.8 

0.00 

Zinc 

386 

5.8 

98.50 

3,100 

<1.3 

99.98 

TSS 

1,490,000 

<10,000 

99.66 

12,400,000 

<10,000 

99.96 

% = Percent pg/L = Microgram per liter 


pumped uphill from the CUD at an average flow rate of 
78.7 L/min into the first lime contact reactor. Forty-five 
percent lime slurry was injected into the reaction tank at an 
average dosage rate of 52.4 mL/min to increase the pH of the 
ARD to approximately 8.0. Process water was drawn from 
upper Leviathan Creek to make up the lime slurry used in the 
treatment process. The lime slurry was mixed with the ARD 
by sparging compressed air into the tank at 378 L/min. The 
partially treated ARD was then gravity drained into a second 
reaction tank where additional lime (52.4 mL/min) was 
injected in the slurry and sparged with air. The process was 
repeated in a third reaction tank. Sequential addition of lime 
in three reaction tanks was used to ensure lime dissolution and 
maximize oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron, which 
reduces lime demand. Following metal precipitate formation, 
the ARD slurry was gravity drained to five bag filters for 
separation of metal precipitate from solution. On average, the 
five bag filters captured a total of 88.9 kg of dry solids per 
day. ARD slurry passing through the five bag filters was 
discharge to the settling lagoon at a combined average flow 
rate of 78.7 L/min. The active portion of the treatment process 
occurred in an average HRT of 144 minutes. The passive 
settling lagoon provided an average of 16.7 days HRT (using 
an operational volume of 1,892,500 liters) for dissolution and 
reaction of any remaining lime with dissolved metals, 
oxidation and precipitation of residual ferrous iron, and 
precipitation of solids passing through the bag filters. 
Unsettled solids are captured on two silt screens within the 
lagoon. On average, the settling lagoon captured 29.2 kg of 
dry solids per day at an average flow rate of 78.7 L/min. A 
summary of the system operational parameters is presented in 
Table 2-17. 

2.5.4.2 Reaction Chemistry 

Operation of the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment 
system is similar to monophasic operation of the active lime 
treatment system, in that selective precipitation of a single 
metal prior to precipitation of all other metals is not necessary. 
Lime addition occurs in three consecutive steps to provide 


adequate time for lime dissolution and contact with dissolved 
metals in the ARD. Aeration is used for both mixing of the 
ARD slurry as well as to promote oxidation of ferrous to ferric 
iron, thereby decreasing lime demand. Following lime 
addition and aeration mixing, reaction pH increased from 4.59 
to 8.02 after sequential addition of lime to the three reaction 
tanks, ferrous iron decreased 89 percent from 6.75 to 
0.7 mg/L, total iron decreased 99 percent from 394 to 
1.5 mg/L, and 65 to 99 percent of all other metals (primarily 
aluminum, arsenic, nickel, and zinc) were precipitated from 
solution as metal hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. The data 
indicate that the majority of the iron is already in the ferric 
oxidation state, a small quantity of ferrous iron was oxidized 
to ferric iron, and mineral acidity was reduced as evidenced by 
an increase in pH. The remaining mineral acidity was 
completely consumed by excess lime in solution, yielding a 
bicarbonate alkalinity of 69.1 mg/L. Excess sulfate was not 
reduced, likely due to the limited amount of calcium available 
for super saturation of the solution with respect to gypsum. 
Slight changes in ARD chemistry were observed in the 
effluent from the bag filters, primarily associated with a slight 
increase in total iron and specific conductance and a slight 
decrease in ferrous iron. 


Table 2-17. Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Parameters 


Parameter 

Units 

Range 

Average 

System Influent Flow Rate 

(L/min) 

61.7 to 111 

78.7 

Reactor Lime Dosage Rate 
(per reactor) 

(mL/min) 

41 to 71 

52.4 

Reaction Time (each reactor) 

(min) 

34.1 to 61.4 

48.1 

Aeration Rate (each reactor) 

(L/min) 

378 

378 

Bag Filtration Rate (per bag) 

(L/min) 

12.4 to 22.2 

15.75 

Bag Filter Solids Accumulation Rate 

(kg/day) 

69.7 to 125.4 

88.9 

System Fiydraulic Residence Time 

(min) 

102.3 to 184.2 

144.3 

Lagoon Hydraulic Residence Time 

(day) 

12 to 21.3 

16.7 

Lagoon Solids Accumulation Rate 

(kg/day) 

22.9 to 41.2 

29.2 

System Batch Discharge Rate 

(L/min) 

311 to 424 

359 

kg/day = Kilogram per day min = Minute 

L/min = Liter per minute mL/min = Milliliter per minute 


33 

















































Continued lime dissolution likely oxidized the remaining 
ferrous iron to ferric iron. Increases in total iron as well as 
other metals were likely related to fine particulates passing 
through the bag filters. 

Additional changes in ARD chemistry were observed in the 
settling lagoon, primarily due to the continued dissolution and 
reaction of lime with dissolved metals as well as settling of 
metal hydroxide and oxyhydroxide precipitates. The extended 
HRT in the settling lagoon allowed between 60 and 97 percent 
removal of dissolved metals from bag filter discharge. 
Ferrous iron was no longer detected in solution; however, 
lagoon pH remained constant and sulfate actually increased 
slightly, indicating completion lime dissolution (limited excess 
calcium). Approximately 36 percent of the combined hydrated 
lime dose 1.63 g/L added to the three reaction tanks was used 
to neutralize acidity, while the remainder of the dissolved lime 
was used for formation of metal hydroxide precipitates and 
alkalinity. Field and analytical laboratory chemical parameters 
documenting alkaline lagoon reaction chemistry are provided 
in Table 2-18. 

2.5.4.3 Metals Removal by Unit Operation 

Aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc are the metals 
of concern in the ARD from the CUD. Only dissolved iron 
exceed the discharge standards after sequential lime addition 


and air sparging in the reaction tanks. Reaction tank removal 
efficiencies ranged from 88.24 to 99.62 percent. The majority 
of iron and the other metals of concern were accumulated in 
the bag filters. However, aluminum, iron, and nickel reentered 
solution in the bag filter effluent at concentrations exceeding 
discharge standards. The increase in the dissolved 
concentrations of these three metals is likely due to fine 
particulates passing through the bag filters. All of the metals 
of concern met discharge standards in the lagoon after an 
extended time for additional lime dissolution, reaction, and 
precipitate settling. Treatment system removal efficiencies for 
the metals of concern ranged from 88.24 percent for lead to 
99.88 percent for iron. A summary of unit operations 
concentration and removal efficiency data for the metals of 
concern is presented in Table 2-19. 

An evaluation of metals load reduction was prepared based on 
unit operations data collected on July 30, 2002. A total metals 
load of 100.3 kg and a sulfate load of 216.4 kg entered the 
treatment system. A total of 57.2 kg of metals was 
precipitated out of solution, following the sequential addition 
of 185.8 kg of hydrated lime to the ARD in the three reaction 
tanks, leaving 90.7 kg of metals in solution. The slurry was 
discharged from the third reaction tank and into five bag filters 
for separation of metal precipitates. Sulfate was not tracked 
through individual unit operations. The five bag filters 
combined separated 20.7 kg of metals from solution, allowing 
127.3 kg of soluble metals, metal precipitate, and undissolved 


Table 2-18. Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Reaction Chemistry 


Parameter 

Unit 

System 

Influent 

Reactor 
No. 1 

Reactor 
No. 2 

Reactor 
No. 3 

Reactor 

Change 

System 

Effluent 

System 

Change 

pH 

(SU) 

4.59 

8.05 

8.18 

8.02 

3.5 

7.92 

3.33 

Redox Potential 

(mV) 

188 

188 

190 

190 

2 

190 

2 

Total Iron (dissolved) 

(mg/L) 

394 

NM 

NM 

1.5 

-392.5 

0.463 

-393.5 

Ferrous Iron 

(mg/L) 

6.75 

NM 

NM 

0.7 

-6 

0 

-6.75 

Specific Conductance 

(pmhos/cm) 

2,665 

2,840 

2,820 

2,790 

125 

3,000 

335 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(mg/L) 

1.6 

1.8 

4.6 

6 

4.4 

6.6 

5.0 

Temperature 

(°C) 

14.8 

12.94 

12.43 

12.73 

-2.1 

18.07 

3.27 

Sulfate 

(mg/L) 

1,900 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NC 

2,040 

140 

Total Alkalinity 

(mg/L) 

<2 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NC 

69.1 

68.1 

Total Dissolved Solids 

(mg/L) 

2,660 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NC 

2,910 

250 


Parameter 

Unit 

Bag Filter 
Influent 

Bag Filter 
Effluent 

Filter 

Change 

Lagoon 
Cell No. 1 

Lagoon 
Cell No. 2 

Lagoon 
Cell No. 3 

Lagoon 

Change 

pH 

(SU) 

8.02 

7.93 

-0.1 

7.9 

7.9 

7.92 

0.02 

Redox Potential 

(mV) 

190 

190 

0 

189 

189 

190 

1 

Total Iron 

(mg/L) 

1.5 

18 

16.5 

2.4 

0.462 

0.463 

-1.94 

Ferrous Iron 

(mg/L) 

0.7 

0.2 

-0.5 

<0.1 

<0.1 

<0.1 

0 

Specific Conductance 

(pmhos/cm) 

2,790 

2,810 

20 

2,950 

2,990 

3,000 

50 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(mg/L) 

6 

5.34 

-0.66 

NM 

NM 

6.6 

NC 

Temperature 

(°C) 

12.73 

17.96 

5.23 

17.06 

17.55 

18.07 

1.01 

Sulfate 

(mg/L) 

NM 

NM 

NC 

NM 

NM 

2,040 

NC 

Total Alkalinity 

(mg/L) 

NM 

NM 

NC 

NM 

NM 

69.1 

NC 

Total Dissolved Solids 

(mg/L) 

NM 

2,840 

NC 

NM 

NM 

2,910 

NC 


|imhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeter mg/L = Milligram per liter SU = Standard unit 

°C = Degree Celsius NC = Not calculated 

mV = Millivolt NM = Not measured 


34 














































Table 2-19. Alkaline Lagoon Unit Operation Metals Removal Efficiencies 


Parameter 

Reaction Tanks 

Bag Filters 

Lagoon 

System 

Influent 

(Pg/L) 

Effluent 

(ne/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Effluent 

(Pg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Effluent 

(pg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Effluent 

(Pg/L) 

Removal 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Aluminum 

33,600 

470 

98.60 

2,100 

-77.62 

254 

87.90 

254 

99.24 

Arsenic 

510 

9.7 

98.10 

34.0 

-71.47 

5.8 

82.94 

5.8 

98.86 

Cadmium 

<0.3 

<0.3 

0.00 

0.3 

-50.00 

0.3 

0.00 

0.3 

-50.00 

Chromium 

19.5 

3.5 

82.05 

4.6 

-23.91 

3.3 

28.26 

3.3 

83.08 

Copper 

14.0 

4.8 

65.71 

2.5 

92.00 

3.6 

-30.56 

3.6 

74.29 

Iron 

394.000 

1,500 

99.62 

18,000 

-91.67 

463 

97.43 

463 

99.88 

Lead 

5.1 

< 1.2 

88.24 

1.5 

-60.00 

< 1.2 

60.00 

< 1.2 

88.24 

Nickel 

1,670 

64.1 

96.16 

129 

-50.31 

22.4 

82.64 

22.4 

98.66 

Selenium 

<2.5 

<2.5 

0.00 

<2.5 

0.00 

<2.5 

0.00 

<2.5 

0.00 

Zinc 

360 

14.1 

96.08 

32.2 

-56.21 

9.6 

70.19 

9.6 

97.33 


% = Percent_pg/L = Microgram per liter 


hydrated lime to discharge to the alkaline lagoon for additional 
reaction and final settling. A total of 97.9 kg of metals 
(primarily calcium) and 232.4 kg of sulfate were batch 
discharged from the alkaline lagoon to Leviathan Creek. A 
total of 89 kg of solids were captured in the five bag filters; 
while an additional 29 kg of solids settled in the alkaline 
lagoon. A total of 185.8 kg of hydrated lime was required to 
neutralize 65.9 kg acidity (as hydrated lime) and precipitate 
53.6 kg of metals (excluding added calcium) from the ARD on 
July 30, 2002. 

2.5.4.4 Solids Separation 

Precipitate generated during operation of the semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system is separated from ARD using 
bag filters and a settling lagoon with extended hydraulic 
residence time. The bag filtration process is used to capture 
the majority of the solids prior to discharge to the settling 
lagoon. Solids handling following treatment is simplified 
using bag filters in comparison to draining the settling lagoon, 


air drying the sludge, and excavating the sludge from the 
HDPE-lined basin. The bag filters removed between 52 and 
79 percent of the metals and 58 percent of suspended solids 
from solution prior to filtrate discharge to the settling lagoon. 

Extended lime dissolution and reaction with residual metals 
and settling in the lagoon promoted removal of 54 to 
99 percent of metals and suspended solids from solution. 
Effluent from the settling lagoon met EPA discharge criteria. 
Neither solids separation approach was as effective as the 
combination of polymer addition and settling in plate and pit 
clarifiers. Additional suspended solids removal could be 
achieved by adding a polymer to the final reaction tank to 
improve floe growth rate and size. Metals and solids removal 
efficiencies for bag filters and settling lagoon are provided in 
Table 2-20. 

Up to five bag filters were used at one time to remove the 
initial load of suspended solids from the ARD slurry. The 
HRT of each bag filter varies based on the thickness of the 


Table 2-20. Alkaline Lagoon Solids Separation Efficiencies 



Bag Filter 

Lagoon 

Cumulative 


Unfiltered 

Unfiltered 

Percent 

Separated 

Unfiltered 

Unfiltered 

Percent 

Percent 


Influent 

Effluent 

Removal 

Solids 

Influent 

Effluent 

Removal 

Removal 

Parameter 

(Pg/L) 

(Pg/L) 

(%) 

(mg/kg) 

(Pg/L) 

(Pg/L) 

(%) 

(%) 

Aluminum 

31,500 

10,200 

67.62 

20,000 

10,200 

307 

96.99 

99.03 

Arsenic 

508 

164 

67.72 

326 

164 

7.2 

95.61 

98.58 

Cadmium 

<0.3 

<0.3 

0.00 

<0.52 

<0.3 

<0.3 

0.00 

0.00 

Chromium 

24.9 

11.8 

52.61 

19.9 

11.8 

3.8 

67.80 

84.74 

Copper 

29.7 

8.7 

70.71 

9.4 

8.7 

4.0 

54.02 

86.53 

Iron 

322,000 

99,900 

68.98 

205,000 

99,900 

932 

99.07 

99.71 

Lead 

7.8 

1.6 

79.49 

3.1 

1.6 

<1.2 

62.50 

92.31 

Nickel 

1,490 

506 

66.04 

924 

506 

27.2 

94.62 

98.17 

Selenium 

<2.5l 

< 2.5' 

0.00 

5.9 

<2.5 

<2.5 

0.00 

0.00 

Zinc 

343 1 

lir 

65.89 

213 

117 

11.4 

90.26 

96.68 

TSS 

1 , 100,000 

456,000 

58.55 

NA 

456,000 

10,000 

97.81 

99.09 


% = Percent mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram 

pg/L ~ Microgram per liter NA =Jjotj 2 plicable_ 


35 





















































filter cake buildup on the bag interior. A fresh bag filter with 
minimal filter cake build up provides approximately 5.3 hours 
of HRT at one-fifth the treatment rate, while a full bag 
provides less than 1 hour of HRT. Approximately 
113,000 liters of ARD slurry was discharged to up to five bag 
filters each day, generating a total of 89 kg of dry solids. On 
average, the bag filters fill with solids and require change out 
every 60 days. Approximately 1 day is required to obtain 
adequate filtration from a new bag. A total of nine bag filters 
were used over 128 days of operation. The bag filters were 
allowed to gravity drain and air dry to a moisture content of 
88 percent prior to solids handling. The bag filters were cut 
open, the contents removed with a bobcat, and transferred to a 
roll off bin for disposal. 

The settling lagoon provided an average of 16.7 days of HRT 
for dissolution and reaction of any remaining lime with metals 
and solids settling. Approximately 113,000 liters of filtrate 
was discharged from the bag filters to the settling lagoon each 
day, generating approximately 29 kg of dry solids. On 
average, 9 to 18 centimeters of wet sludge (98 to 99 percent 
moisture content) is deposited in the settling lagoon during a 
treatment season. Sludge has not been removed from the 
settling lagoon to date due to the small quantity generated. 

2.5.5 Evaluation of Solids Handling and 
Disposal 

The following sections describe solids handling activities 
conducted during the operation of each treatment system. The 
discussion includes a summary of waste characterization and 
handling requirements, identifies the sources and quantity of 
solids from each treatment system, identifies the 
characteristics of each solid waste stream, and identifies the 
method of disposal for each solids waste stream. 

2.5.5.1 Waste Characterization and Handling 
Requirements 

Lime treatment of AMD and ARD generates a metal 
hydroxide solid waste stream. The solid waste residuals 
produced by both treatment systems were analyzed for 
hazardous waste characteristics. Determination of waste 
characteristics is necessary to determine appropriate handling 
and disposal requirements. Therefore, total and leachable 
metals analyses were performed on the solid waste streams for 
comparison to California and Federal hazardous waste 
classification criteria. To determine if the solid waste streams 
are a Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) waste, TCLP results were compared to TCLP limits. 
To determine whether the solid waste streams are a California 
hazardous waste, total metals results (wet weight) were 
compared to California total threshold limit concentration 
(TTLC) criteria. If a solid waste stream exceeds either Federal 
TCLP criteria or California TTLC criteria, then the waste is 


considered to be hazardous and must be disposed of in a 
permitted TSD facility. 

If a solid waste stream is found to be non-hazardous, then the 
potential to impact water quality must be evaluated. The 
leachability of metals from a solid waste stream must be 
determined using the California WET procedure if disposed of 
in California or another accepted leaching procedure if 
disposed of in other states. Deionized water (DI) was used as 
the WET leaching solution. To determine whether a non- 
hazardous solid waste stream poses a threat to water quality in 
California, metals concentrations in WET leachate samples 
were compared to California soluble threshold limit 
concentration (STLC) criteria. Solid waste stream samples 
were also subject to the SPLP, a commonly accepted leaching 
procedure in other states. If a solid waste stream exceeds the 
California STLC criteria, then the waste is considered to be a 
threat to water quality and the waste must be disposed of in a 
permitted TSD facility or engineering controls implemented to 
protect water quality. Interpretation of SPLP data are state- 
specific and are beyond the scope of this discussion. 
Evaluation of the quantity, characteristics, and disposal of 
solid waste streams generated by the active lime treatment 
system is presented in Section 2.5.5.2 and the semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system in Section 2.5.5.3. 

2.5.5.2 Active Lime Treatment System 

Biphasic operation of the active lime treatment system in 2002 
and 2003 produced 44 dry tons of filter cake (54.6 to 
63.1 percent moisture) for Phase I of the process and 212 dry 
tons (77 to 84.4 percent moisture) of metal hydroxide sludge 
in the Phase II pit clarifier. The Phase I filter cake consists 
mainly of iron and arsenic hydroxides; while the Phase II pit 
clarifier sludge consists of gypsum and metal hydroxides high 
in iron, aluminum, copper, nickel, and zinc. During 
monophasic operations in 2003, the active lime treatment 
system produced 15.2 dry tons (75.9 percent moisture) of filter 
cake consisting of gypsum and metal hydroxides high in iron, 
aluminum, arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc. No other waste 
streams were generated during monophasic operations. 

The characteristics of the solid waste streams generated during 
biphasic and monophasic operations in 2003 are presented in 
Table 2-21. The Phase I filter cake generated during biphasic 
operations in 2002 and 2003 was determined to be a California 
hazardous waste by RWQCB due to elevated arsenic 
concentrations. However, our evaluation data indicate that 
arsenic was slightly below the State TTLC criteria and was not 
a hazardous waste. RWQCB shipped the filter cake off-site to 
a permitted TSD facility in Beatty, Nevada. The Phase II pit 
clarifier sludge generated during biphasic operations in 2002 
and 2003 was found to be a non-hazardous waste. The non- 
hazardous sludge was excavated from the pit clarifier prior to 


36 



Table 2-21. Active Lime Treatment System Waste Characterization 


Parameter 

Biphasic Phase 1 Filter Cake 

Total Metals' 

Total Metals 2 

(mg/kg) 

Exceed 

TTLC? 

DI WET Metals 
(mg/L) 

Exceed 

STLC? 

TCLP 

(mg/L) 

Exceed 

TCLP? 

SPLP Metals 
(mg/L) 

Antimony 

< 1.4 

<0.52 

No 

<0.013 

No 

< 0.005 

NA 

< 0.0025 

Arsenic 

1,300 

478 

No 

0.448 

No 

< 0.0063 

No 

Rejected 

Barium 

2 

0.74 

No 

0.0292 

No 

0.0166 

No 

0.0035 

Beryllium 

0.72 

0.266 

No 

0.0211 

No 

<0.00016 

NA 

<0.000077 

Cadmium 

2.6 

0.96 

No 

< 0.0054 

No 

0.0054 

No 

0.0017 

Chromium 

222 

81.9 

No 

2.87 

No 

<0.0031 

No 

Rejected 

Cobalt 

62.9 

23.2 

No 

1.92 

No 

0.159 

NA 

<0.00061 

Copper 

125 

46.1 

No 

2.81 

No 

<0.0149 

NA 

<0.0117 

Lead 

1.8 

0.66 

No 

0.0082 

No 

0.0086 

No 

0.0151 

Mercury 

0.018 

0.007 

No 

< 0.000025 

No 

<0.000025 

No 

< 0.000025 

Molybdenum 

<0.46 

<0.17 

No 

< 0.0042 

No 

< 0.003 

NA 

< 0.00084 

Nickel 

184 

67.9 

No 

5.58 

No 

0.671 

NA 

0.0045 

Selenium 

<0.81 

<0.299 

No 

< 0.0075 

No 

< 0.003 

No 

<0.0015 

Silver 

1.2 

0.44 

No 

0.0055 

No 

< 0.0097 

No 

< 0.0058 

Thallium 

2.8 

1.03 

No 

<0.0314 

No 

0.0284 

NA 

0.0168 

Vanadium 

49.4 

18.2 

No 

0.266 

No 

<0.00076 

NA 

< 0.00038 

Zinc 

43.2 

15.9 

No 

1.17 

No 

0.0247 

NA 

0.0128 

"Biphasic Phase II Pit Clarifier Sludge 

Antimony 

<32 

<5 

No 

< 0.050 

No 

< 0.020 

NA 

<0.010 

Arsenic 

224 

34.9 

No 

0.522 

No 

<0.0038 

No 

< 0.0028 

Barium 

4.2 

0.66 

No 

0.0347 

No 

< 0.0202 

No 

< 0.0052 

Beryllium 

5.6 

0.87 

No 

0.0744 

No 

< 0.00027 

NA 

< 0.002 

Cadmium 

21.4 

3.34 

No 

0.188 

No 

0.0351 

No 

< 0.002 

Chromium 

242 

37.8 

No 

3 

No 

0.0268 

No 

< 0.0037 

Cobalt 

1,100 

172 

No 

13.5 

No 

0.638 

NA 

<0.0021 

Copper 

837 

131 

No 

9.2 

No 

0.0257 

NA 

<0.0022 

Lead 

4.2 

0.66 

No 

< 0.0349 

No 

<0.0033 

No 

< 0.004 

Mercury 

0.12 

0.019 

No 

0.000059 

No 

0.000037 

No 

0.000071 

Molybdenum 

< 1.3 

< 0.203 

No 

< 0.025 

No 

<0.010 

NA 

< 0.005 

Nickel 

2,670 

417 

No 

30.6 

Yes 

2.91 

NA 

<0.0072 

Selenium 

<3.2 

<0.5 

No 

< 0.0477 

No 

<0.0152 

No 

<0.010 

Silver 

<3.2 

<0.5 

No 

<0.0139 

No 

<0.010 

No 

< 0.0056 

Thallium 

9.9 

1.54 

No 

0.143 

No 

0.0523 

NA 

0.031 

Vanadium 

10.9 

1.7 

No 

0.0734 

No 

< 0.020 

NA 

<0.010 

Zinc 

573 

89.4 

No 

6.78 

No 

0.165 

NA 

<0.012 

Monophasic Filter Cake 

Antimony 

<2 

<0.48 

No 

<0.0704 

No 

<0.0129 

NA 

< 0.0039 

Arsenic 

2,510 

605 

Yes 

28.8 

Yes 

<0.0161 

No 

<0.0019 

Barium 

8.7 

2.1 

No 

0.119 

No 

0.0257 

No 

< 0.0037 

Beryllium 

5.1 

1.2 

No 

0.101 

No 

<0.00038 

NA 

<0.00019 

Cadmium 

25.7 

6.2 

No 

0.373 

No 

< 0.0046 

No 

<0.00016 

Chromium 

244 

58.8 

No 

4.25 

No 

< 0.0029 

No 

< 0.00054 

Cobalt 

858 

207 

No 

14.5 

No 

0.577 

NA 

<0.0018 

Copper 

373 

89.9 

No 

6.82 

No 

<0.016 

NA 

<0.0019 

Lead 

5.9 

1.4 

No 

0.086 

No 

< 0.0059 

No 

< 0.0009 

Mercury 

0.17 

0.041 

No 

0.00029 

No 

<0.00019 

No 

<0.00013 

Molybdenum 

<0.4 

< 0.096 

No 

< 0.0024 

No 

< 0.00097 

NA 

< 0.00048 

Nickel 

1,990 

480 

No 

33.5 

Yes 

1.43 

NA 

< 0.0029 

Selenium 

21.6 

5.2 

No 

<0.140 

No 

<0.0372 

No 

< 0.0026 

Silver 

<0.36 

<0.087 

No 

< 0.0022 

No 

< 0.0034 

No 

< 0.00075 

Thallium 

74.1 

17.9 

No 

0.935 

No 

0.272 

NA 

0.0859 

Vanadium 

150 

36.2 

No 

1.83 

No 

<0.0011 

NA 

< 0.00053 

Zinc 

397 

95.7 

No 

5.5 

No 

0.0599 

NA 

< 0.002 

1 Metals data reported as dry weight 2 Metals data reported as wet weight for comparison to TTLC 

DI WET = Waste extraction test using deionized water SPLP = Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration 

mg/L = Milligram per liter TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 

NA = Not applicable TTLC = Total threshold limit concentration 


37 




























































































2003 operations and disposed of on site after it was 
determined not to pose a threat to water quality. The solids 
generated in 2003 were found to pose a threat to water quality 
due to leachable concentrations of nickel exceeding State 
STLC criteria. The sludge remains in the pit clarifier awaiting 
future excavation and on-site storage after stabilization. The 
filter cake generated during monophasic operations in 2003 
was determined to be a California hazardous waste due to 
elevated arsenic concentrations. The filter cake was shipped 
off-site to a permitted TSD facility in Beatty, Nevada. 

2.5.5.3 Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 

The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system produced 
an estimated 12.6 dry tons of bag filter solids (88.4 percent 


moisture). The bag filter solids consist mainly of aluminum, 
iron, and manganese hydroxides, gypsum, and a significant 
quantity of arsenic, cobalt, and nickel hydroxides. An 
estimated 4.1 dry tons of sludge (98 percent moisture) was 
settled in the lagoon; however, a sample for waste 
characterization was not collected due to the small amount 
generated. 

The bag filter solids generated during 2002 operations were 
determined to be non-hazardous and not a threat to water 
quality. The solids were shipped off-site to a municipal 
landfill for disposal. The characteristics of the solid waste 
stream generated during 2002 operations are presented in 
Table 2-22. 


Table 2-22. Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System Waste Characterization 



Bag Filter Solids 


Total Metals' 

Total Metals 2 

Exceed 

Dl WET Metals 

Exceed 

TCLP 

Exceed 

SPLP Metals 

Parameter 

(mg/kg) 

(mg/kg) 

TTLC? 

(mg/L) 

STLC? 

(mg/L) 

TCLP? 

(mg/L) 

Antimony 

<6.2 

<0.72 

No 

<0.018 

No 

< 0.0072 

NA 

< 0.0036 

Arsenic 

326 

37.8 

No 

3.14 

No 

< 0.003 

No 

<0.0017 

Barium 

<4.5 

<0.52 

No 

0.113 

No 

< 0.0067 

No 

< 0.0066 

Beryllium 

3.6 

0.42 

No 

0.0325 

No 

< 0.0003 

NA 

< 0.0002 

Cadmium 

<0.52 

<0.06 

No 

<0.0015 

No 

< 0.00058 

No 

< 0.00029 

Chromium 

19.9 

2.3 

No 

0.151 

No 

<0.013 

No 

< 0.0043 

Cobalt 

449 

52.1 

No 

4.37 

No 

0.105 

NA 

< 0.0035 

Copper 

9.4 

1.1 

No 

< 0.067 

No 

< 0.0048 

NA 

< 0.0062 

Lead 

3.1 

0.36 

No 

0.0401 

No 

< 0.0028 

No 

<0.0019 

Mercury 

0.25 

0.029 

No 

0.000038 

No 

0.00003 

No 

0.000028 

Molybdenum 

< 1.7 

<0.197 

No 

< 0.0049 

No 

<0.0019 

NA 

<0.0017 

Nickel 

924 1 

107 

No 

8.9 

No 

0.278 

NA 

0.0053 

Selenium 

5.9 

0.68 

No 

0.0788 

No 

<0.0141 

No 

< 0.0055 

Silver 

<0.96 

<0.111 

No 

<0.0201 

No 

< 0.0066 

No 

< 0.00062 

Thallium 

<2.6 

<0.30 

No 

< 0.0075 

No 

<0.0105 

NA 

< 0.0047 

Vanadium 

28 

3.3 

No 

0.246 

No 

0.0013 

NA 

< 0.00066 

Zinc 

213 

24.7 

No 

2.27 

No 

0.0187 

NA 

0.0215 


1 Metals data reported as dry weight 2 Metals data reported as wet weight for comparison to TTLC 


DI WET = Waste extraction test using deionized water SPLP = Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure 

mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration 

mg/L = Milligram per liter TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 

NA - Not applicable _ TTLC - Total threshold limit concentration _ 


38 



































SECTION 3 

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS 


This section of the ITER describes the general applicability of 
the lime treatment technologies to reduce acidity and toxic 
levels of metals in water at AMD- and ARD-contaminated 
mine sites. The analysis is based on the results from and 
observations made during the SITE demonstration. 

3.1 Key Features 

Oxidation of sulfur and sulfide minerals within the mine 
workings and waste rock forms sulfuric acid (H 2 S0 4 ), which 
liberates toxic metals from the mine wastes creating AMD and 
ARD. Lime treatment of AMD and ARD is a relatively 
simple chemical process where low pH AMD/ARD is 
neutralized using lime to precipitate dissolved iron, the main 
component of AMD and ARD, and other dissolved metals as 
metal hydroxides and oxy-hydroxides. The precipitation 
occurs under the following reaction: 

Ca(OH) 2 (s) + Me 2 7Me 3+ (aq) + H 2 S0 4 -» 

Me(OH) 2 /Me(OH) 3 (s) + CaS0 4 (s) + H 2 0 (1) 

Where: Me 2+ /Me 3+ = dissolved metal ion in either a 

+2 or +3 valence state 

Along with metal hydroxides, excess sulfate combines with 
excess calcium to precipitate gypsum. Lime treatment can 
occur in a single stage or multiple-stage process, depending on 
the need to reduce the quantity of solids requiring handling 
and disposal as a hazardous waste in an off-site TSD facility. 

The active lime treatment system can be used to reduce acidity 
and precipitate toxic metals using either a single stage 
(monophasic) or dual stage (biphasic) lime addition process, 
as demonstrated at the Leviathan Mine site. In monophasic 
mode, the pH of the acid mine flow is raised to precipitate out 
all of the target metals resulting in a large quantity of 
hazardous metals-laden sludge. During biphasic operations, 
the active lime treatment system creates a small quantity of 
hazardous metals-laden filter cake from the first precipitation 
phase (Phase I). The optimum pH range for Phase I 
precipitation is between 2.8 and 3.0. In the second 


precipitation phase (Phase II), the pH is further raised through 
lime addition to precipitate out the remaining target metals 
forming a large quantity of non-hazardous sludge. The 
optimum pH range for Phase II precipitation is between 7.9 
and 8.2. The Phase II sludge typically does not exhibit 
hazardous waste characteristics because the majority of the 
hazardous metals were removed in Phase I. The biphasic 
configuration of the active lime treatment system utilizes the 
same equipment as the monophasic configuration, though 
operated in a two-step lime addition process, and includes the 
addition of an extended settling pit clarifier. 

The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system, also 
demonstrated at Leviathan Mine, can be used to reduce acidity 
and precipitate toxic metals using the same reaction chemistry 
as the active lime treatment system. The system relies on iron 
oxidation during mechanical aeration, optimization of lime 
dosage, and adequate cake thickness within each bag filter to 
filter precipitate from the treated ARD. The system also 
includes a multi-cell settling lagoon for extended lime contact 
and final precipitation of pin floe. 

3.2 Applicable Wastes 

Conventional methods of treating AMD and ARD involve the 
capture, storage, and batch or continuous treatment of water 
using lime addition, which neutralizes acidity and precipitates 
metals. Lime treatment is applicable to any waste stream 
containing metals, if the solubility of the metals is pH- 
sensitive. Metals typically treated include aluminum, arsenic, 
cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc. The 
active lime and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment 
systems in operation at the Leviathan Mine site are simply 
improvements to conventional lime treatment technology. 
Either treatment system can be modified to treat wastes of 
varying metals type or concentration in a single or multi-stage 
process. Active lime treatment appears to be applicable in 
situations where flow rates are high and the treatment season 
is short, while the semi-passive alkaline treatment lagoon 
favors a lower flow rate and extended treatment season. 
Where climate is a limiting factor, an active lime treatment 


39 



system can be housed in a structure heated to temperatures 
above freezing. 

3.3 Factors Affecting Performance 

Several factors can influence the performance of the lime 
treatment systems demonstrated at Leviathan Mine. These 
factors can be grouped into two categories: (1) mine drainage 
characteristics, and (2) operating parameters. Both lime 
treatment technologies are capable of treating a broad range of 
metals in AMD and ARD. The level of acidity, ionic strength, 
and metals composition directly impact the quantity and 
timing of lime delivery required to neutralize acidity and 
precipitate target metals. The quantity of lime required to 
neutralize acidity is often greater than the hydroxide ion 
required for metals precipitation. Increases in solution ionic 
strength, often driven by iron and aluminum content, requires 
additional lime for target metals precipitation. Finally, careful 
control of lime addition is required above neutral pH to 
prevent dissolution of target metals back into solution. 
System design should include an AMD/ARD equilibration 
basin upstream of the treatment system to reduce fluctuations 
in acidity and solution ionic strength, allowing system 
operators to more tightly control reaction chemistry. 

Unit operating parameters also directly impact system 
performance. The quality of lime, lime dose, duration of lime 
contact, pH control, and HRT all impact removal of target 
metals. Variations in the quality of lime used, poor lime feed 
design, and inadequate maintenance can lead to formation of 
caked lime within the lime slurry holding tank and the lime 
feed pumps and delivery lines. Careful design, operation, and 
maintenance of lime storage tanks, pumps, delivery lines, and 
pH process monitoring probes is required to maintain stable 
lime dosing rates and maximize system up time. A higher 
purity lime should also be used to improve pumpability and 
minimize maintenance. Lime overdosing can lead to 
excessive scaling problems inside of reaction tanks, clarifiers, 
pumps, and piping; while inadequate dosing can lead to excess 
metals in the effluent streams that exceed discharge standards. 

The method and duration of lime contact with AMD and ARD 
in the reaction tanks also impacts system performance due to 
incomplete lime dissolution, inadequate hydroxide contact 
with target metals, and inadequate time required for 
precipitate formation and growth. Careful sizing, design, and 
maintenance of mixing devices such as aeration bars and 
stirrers is required to ensure adequate lime dissolution and 
contact with AMD and ARD. System operators must also 
balance system influent flow rate, solids recycle rate, and 
mixing rate to allow adequate time for precipitate growth. 

Finally, the method and duration of precipitate separation and 
settling also impacts system performance due to the extended 
time required for complete lime dissolution and the settling of 
pin floe. The active lime treatment system relies on a 


flocculent to generate settleable solids, plate clarifiers to 
concentrate settled solids, and a large pit clarifier to allow 
settling of pin floe. If flocculent dosage is not adequately 
controlled or system influent flow rates vary, then the 
efficiency of the plate clarifiers decreases. Therefore, a large 
extended settling basin, such as the pit clarifier, provides the 
system operator some room for error during system upsets. 
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system relies on 
bag filters to separate precipitate and a lagoon to allow 
extended lime dissolution, contact with soluble target metals, 
and settling of pin floe. The bag filters remove 40 to 
60 percent of the precipitates, while the lagoon removes the 
remaining precipitates and allows the system operator some 
room for error during system upsets. 

3.4 Technology Limitations 

In general, the limitations of the lime treatment systems 
implemented at Leviathan Mine were not related to the 
applicability of the technology, but rather to operational issues 
due to weather conditions, maintenance problems, and 
remoteness of the site. Because of sub-freezing temperatures 
encountered in the high Sierras during winter months, the 
Leviathan Mine lime treatment systems were shut down from 
late fall through late spring. The systems were completely 
drained and winterized to prevent damage to pumps, tanks, 
and system piping. The process of winterizing and de- 
winterizing either treatment system is time consuming and 
manpower intensive. The State and ARCO are currently 
evaluating the feasibility of constructing an active lime 
treatment system, enclosed within a heated shelter, for long 
term year round operations. Year round operational capability 
would allow downsizing of the treatment system for lower 
continuous flow rates rather than large batch flow rates. 

Lime treatment systems are maintenance intensive and have to 
be monitored regularly to maintain proper operating 
conditions. During extended operation, lime storage tanks, 
reaction tanks, lime transfer and process water pumps, feed 
and transfer piping, and process monitoring probes are 
susceptible to plugging with lime clumps and gypsum scaling. 
During operation of the lime treatment systems at Leviathan 
Mine, on several occasions sections of piping were replaced, 
pumps were upgraded, and monitoring devices were replaced 
due to gypsum fouling. Continued optimization of lime 
dosage and equipment improvements would likely reduce 
downtime associated with lime and gypsum fouling. 

The remoteness of the site also created logistical challenges in 
maintaining operation of the lime treatment systems. 
Consumable materials, such as lime and diesel fuel (to power 
generators), were stored in bulk at the site. In one instance, a 
shipment of lime had to be diverted to a secondary route 
because of traffic issues; the diversion resulted in a half-day 
delay in the delivery of the lime. During operation of the 
treatment systems in early fall and late spring, unexpected 
freezing temperatures can cause pipe breakage. In addition, 


40 



early and late snowfall events can prevent site access. Careful 
planning is essential to maintain supplies of consumable 
materials and replacement equipment at remote sites. 

3.5 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics 

This section describes the site characteristics necessary for 
successful application of either lime treatment technology. 

Staging Area and Support Facilities: For full-scale lime 
treatment systems such as those in operation at Leviathan 
Mine, substantial staging areas and support facilities are 
necessary for continuous operation of the treatment systems. 
A staging area is needed for storage of consumable materials, 
supplies, and reagents; loading and unloading equipment; and 
for placement of Connex boxes, which are used for storage of 
spare parts and equipment that are not weather resistant. 
Additional space is necessary for placement of portable office, 
laboratory, and health and safety facilities; portable toilets; 
and power generating equipment. The staging and facilities 
areas for a large treatment system may range between 1,000 
and 4,000 square meters and are usually located near or 
adjacent to the treatment system and holding ponds. These 
areas should include pass-through access roads to 
accommodate large tractor-trailer rigs that are used to drop off 
and pickup equipment and facilities. 

Treatment System Space Requirements: For the active 
lime treatment system, space is needed for reagent storage 
tanks, make-up water tanks, reaction tanks, clarifiers, floe mix 
tanks, sludge holding tanks, a filter press, and various pumps 
and piping. The sizing of equipment and the space necessary 
for these systems is dependent on the flow rate of the ARD or 
AMD to be treated. Additional level land may be necessary 
for holding ponds, particularly if the systems are run 
seasonally rather than year round. Overall, the space 
requirement for the active lime treatment system at Leviathan 
Mine is about 800 square meters. A pit clarifier, which 
requires an additional 1,400 square meters of space, may be 
necessary during biphasic operations. 

For the alkaline lagoon treatment system, about 1,000 square 
meters is needed for placement of reagent storage tanks, 
reaction tanks, air compressors, bag filters, and various pumps 
and piping. A large extended contact settling lagoon, capable 
of containing at least 3 days worth of partially treated ARD, is 
also required. The settling lagoon at Leviathan Mine covers 
about 4,000 square meters and has a total volume of 
5.4 million liters. 

Climate: Operation of the lime treatment systems may be 
affected by various climatological effects such as 
precipitation, snowfall, and freezing temperatures. If holding 
ponds are utilized to accumulate water for treatment, 
excessive rainfall will likely increase the overall volume of 
water to be treated; however, this may be offset by summer 


evaporation. Water storage tanks may be necessary at sites 
where excessive rainfall is expected, and evaporation rates are 
low. Although limited snowfall will not generally affect 
operating conditions, excessive snowfall may lead to freezing 
of pipes and other process equipment resulting in significant 
down-time. In areas where freezing temperatures are normal 
throughout the winter months, such as at the Leviathan Mine 
site, the lime treatment system must be completely drained 
and winterized to prevent damage to pumps, tanks, and system 
piping. The process of winterizing and de-winterizing either 
treatment system is time consuming and manpower intensive. 
Consideration should also be given to constructing a heated 
shelter for treatment systems located at high altitude or in 
areas with freezing temperatures to avoid labor costs 
associated with winterization/dewinterization activities. Other 
climatological effects such as wind and excessive heat do not 
generally have an affect on the operation of the systems; 
however, additional precautions should be observed during 
these conditions to protect the operator health and safety. 

Utilities: The main utility requirement for a lime treatment 
system is electricity, which is used to operate electrical and 
hydraulic pumps, stirrer motors, air compressors, process 
monitoring equipment, portable office trailers, and site 
lighting. Each lime treatment system at Leviathan Mine 
requires up to 20 kilowatt (kW)-hours of electricity for 
continuous operation. The main generators run continuously 
during operation of both treatment systems. For the active 
lime treatment system, a 180 kW diesel generator (including a 
4,000-liter diesel fuel tank) is used to power the treatment 
system and support facilities. A 150 kW diesel generator 
(including a 4,000-liter diesel fuel tank) is used to power the 
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system and support 
facilities. A spare 45 kW backup unit (with a 1,400-liter 
diesel fuel tank) is also located onsite. Depending on the 
remoteness of the site, cellular or satellite phone service may 
be required. 

3.6 Personnel Requirements 

Personnel requirements for operation of each treatment system 
following initial design and construction can be broken down 
into the following activities: seasonal assembly, startup, and 
shakedown; operation and maintenance; and seasonal 
demobilization. System start-up and shakedown includes the 
labor to setup pumps, pipes, and rental equipment, test system 
hydraulics, startup the system, and optimize the system to 
meet discharge standards. System startup and shakedown 
occurs at the beginning of each treatment season as the system 
is cleaned and disassembled each winter. After system 
assembly and start up, a shake down is necessary to ensure 
that any problems are identified and addressed prior to 
optimization. The system is then optimized for the desired 
source water, flow rate, and discharge standards. This process 
generally requires 8 to 10 days of labor for a field crew of four 
who are familiar with the system. After initial startup, a 


41 



significant amount of additional time may be spent refining 
lime and polymer dosages and for hydraulic balancing. 

Field personnel are necessary to operate each treatment 
system, perform daily maintenance, drop waste solids from the 
filter press, collect discharge monitoring samples, monitor unit 
operation pH and flow rates, and to adjust lime and polymer 
dosage rates. The active lime treatment system, operated in 
both monophasic and biphasic modes, require a minimum of 
two personnel per shift and from two to three shifts per day 
depending on stability of operations and maintenance 
requirements. The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment 
system requires a minimum of two personnel per day to ensure 
proper operation and maintain equipment. This system 
requires fewer personnel due to fewer, less complicated unit 
operations. 

Demobilization includes cleaning, disassembling, and storing 
system components at the end of each treatment season. 
Demobilization activities include draining unused reagents 
from the system, cleaning the interior of reaction tanks, lime 
slurry tanks, and clarifiers; disassembly, cleaning, and storage 
of pumps and piping; returning of rental equipment; and 
consolidation and off-site disposal of hazardous waste. This 
process generally requires 8 to 10 days of labor for a field 
crew of four who are familiar with the system. 

In addition to field personnel, support staff is required for 
project management, site management, engineering, and 
administrative support functions. The level of effort required 
for support staff ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the total 
project level of effort, depending on the duration of the 
treatment season. 

3.7 Materials Handling Requirements 

There is one process residual associated with lime treatment of 
AMD and ARD. The process produces a large quantity of 
metal hydroxide sludge and filter cake. During operation in 
biphasic mode, the active lime treatment system produced 
about 43.8 dry tons of Phase I filter cake consisting mainly of 
iron and arsenic hydroxides and 212 dry tons of Phase II pit 
clarifier sludge consisting of metal hydroxides high in iron, 
aluminum, copper, nickel, zinc, and lime solids. In addition, 
gypsum is also a large component of the Phase II sludge. 
During operation in monophasic mode, the active lime 
treatment system produced about 15.2 dry tons of filter cake 
consisting of metal hydroxides and gypsum. The semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system produced 12.6 dry tons of 
bag filter sludge consisting of metal hydroxides and gypsum. 

The solid waste residuals produced by the treatment systems 
were analyzed for hazardous waste characteristics. Total 
metals and leachable metals analyses were performed on the 
solid wastes for comparison to California and Federal 
hazardous waste classification criteria. To determine whether 


the residuals are California hazardous waste, total metals 
results were compared to TTLC criteria. To determine 
whether metals concentrations in the solid waste residuals 
pose a threat to water quality, DI WET leachate results were 
compared to STLC criteria. To determine if the residuals are a 
RCRA waste, TCLP leachate results were compared to TCLP 
limits. The hazardous waste characteristics determined for the 
solid waste streams are presented in Table 3-1. 

The Phase I filter cake generated during biphasic operations 
was determined to be a California hazardous waste due to 
elevated arsenic concentrations. The Phase II pit clarifier 
sludge generated during biphasic operations was found to be a 
threat to water quality due to leachable concentrations of 
nickel exceeding State STLC criteria. The filter cake 
generated during monophasic operations was determined to be 
a California hazardous waste due to elevated arsenic 
concentrations. The bag filter solids generated during 
operation of the alkaline lagoon treatment system did not 
exceed any of the waste classification criteria. With the 
exception of the Phase II pit clarifier sludge produced in 2003, 
the solid waste streams that failed the TTLC, STLC, or TCLP 
criteria were transported to an off-site TSD facility for 
disposal. Solid waste streams that passed both State and 
Federal hazardous waste criteria were disposed of on site. 

3.8 Permit Requirements 

Actions taken on-site during a CERCLA cleanup action must 
comply only with the substantive portion of a given 
regulation. On-site activities need not comply with 
administrative requirements such as obtaining a permit, record 
keeping, or reporting. Actions taken off-site must comply 
with both the substantive and administrative requirements of 
applicable laws and regulations. All actions taken at the 
Leviathan Mine Superfund site were on-site; therefore permits 
were not obtained. 

Permits that may be required for off-site actions or actions at 
non-CERCLA sites include: a permit to operate a hazardous 
waste treatment system, an National Pollutant Discharge and 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for effluent discharge, an 
NPDES permit for discharge of storm water during 
construction activities, and an operations permit from a local 
air quality management district (AQMD) for activities 
generating particulate emissions. Permits from local agencies 
may also be required for grading, construction, and 
operational activities; transport of oversized equipment on 
local roads; and transport of hazardous materials on local 
roads. 

3.9 Community Acceptance 

Community acceptance for the lime treatment systems 
operated at Leviathan Mine is positive. The diversion and 
treatment of AMD and ARD at the mine site is seen as 


42 



Table 3-1. Determination of Hazardous Waste Characteristics for Solid Waste Streams at Leviathan Mine 


Treatment 

System 

Mode of 
Operation 

Operational 

Year 

Solid Waste Stream 
Evaluated 

Total Solid 
W'aste 
Generated 

TTLC 

STLC 

TCLP 

Waste 

Handling 

Requirement 

Pass or 
Fail 

Pass or 
Fail 

Pass or 
Fail 

Active Lime 

Treatment 

System 

Biphasic 

2002 

Phase I Filter Cake 

22.7 dry tons 

F 

F 

P 

Off-site TSD 
Facility 

Phase II Pit Clarifier 
Sludge 

118 dry tons 

P 

P 

P 

On-site 

Disposal 

2003 

Phase I Filter Cake 

21.1 dry tons 

F 

P 

P 

Off-site TSD 
Facility 

Phase II Pit Clarifier 
Sludge 

93.6 dry tons 

P 

F 

P 

On-site Storage 

Monophasic 

2003 

Filter Cake 

15.2 dry tons 

F 

F 

P 

Off-site TSD 
Facility 

Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon 
Treatment System 

2002 

Bag Filter Sludge 

12.6 dry tons 

P 

P 

P 

On- or Off-site 
Disposal 

STLC = Soluble threshold limit concentration TSD = Treatment, storage, and disposa 

TTLC = Total threshold limit concentration TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leachm 

g procedure 


necessary and positive step towards reestablishing a quality 
watershed within the Sierra Nevada mountain range. 
Although ARD is returned to Leviathan Creek during the 
winter months because reliable power is not available to lift 
ARD from the bottom of the mine site to the retention ponds, 
the community, EPA, ARCO, and the state of California are 
evaluating options to ensure that ARD is removed from 
Leviathan Creek year round. Continued community 
involvement and regulatory agency support will be necessary 
for long term treatment and monitoring at a mine site such as 
Leviathan Mine. 

Operation of the lime treatment system presents minimal to no 
risk to the public since all system components and treatment 
operations occur within a contained site. Hazardous chemicals 
used in the treatment system include lime and diesel fuel. In 
addition, hazardous solids in the form of metal hydroxide filter 
cake are generated during the treatment process. These 
chemicals pose the highest risk to the public during 
transportation to and from the site by truck and trailer. 
Appropriate Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations 
are followed during shipment of these chemicals to minimize 
potential impacts to the public. During operation, the diesel 
generators used to power the treatment systems create the 
most noise and air emissions at the site. Because of the 
remoteness of the Leviathan Mine site, the public is not 
impacted by these issues. Alternative power sources are 
currently being evaluated, including wind and hydraulic 
turbines, which will replace or augment the diesel-powered 
generators. 

3.10 Availability, Adaptability, and 
Transportability of Equipment 

The components of both the active lime treatment system and 
semi-passive alkaline treatment lagoon are generally available 


and not proprietary. System process components include 
(1) reaction equipment such as pumps, pipes, and transfer 
lines; reaction, flocculation, and reagent tanks; mixers; and 
clarifiers; (2) control equipment such as pH monitoring 
systems, lime dosage and feed systems, polymer dosage and 
feed systems, mixer controls, and aeration controls; and 
(3) solids handling equipment such as filter presses, roll-off 
bins, and bag filters. This equipment is available from 
numerous suppliers throughout the country and may be 
ordered in multiple sizes to meet flow requirements and 
treatment area accessibility. An integrated design is 
recommended to properly size and assemble individual 
components for proper system operation. 

Transport of reaction and reagent tanks, clarifiers, and filter 
presses to a site may require handling as oversize or wide 
loads. Additional consideration should be given to the 
stability of mine access roads, bridge clearances, and load 
limits for large shipments. Process reagents and consumables, 
such as lime and generator fuel, are considered hazardous 
materials and will require stable site access roads for delivery. 

3.11 Ability to Attain ARARs 

Under CERCLA, remedial actions conducted at Superfund 
sites must comply with Federal and state (if more stringent) 
environmental laws that are determined to be applicable or 
relevant and appropriate. Applicable or relevant and 
appropriate requirements (ARAR) are determined on a site- 
specific basis by the EPA remedial project manager. They are 
used as a tool to guide the remedial project manager toward 
the most environmentally safe way to manage remediation 
activities. The remedial project manager reviews each Federal 
environmental law and determines if it is applicable. If the 
law is not applicable, then the determination must be made 
whether the law is relevant and appropriate. Actions taken on- 


43 




































site during a CERCLA cleanup action must comply only with 
the substantive portion of a given ARAR. On-site activities 
need not comply with administrative requirements such as 
obtaining a permit, record keeping, or reporting. Actions 
conducted off-site must comply with both the substantive and 
administrative requirements of applicable laws and 
regulations. 

On-site remedial actions, such as the lime treatment systems in 
operation at the Leviathan Mine site, must comply with 
Federal and more stringent state ARARs, however, ARARs 
may be waived under six conditions: (1) the action is an 
interim measure, and the ARAR will be met at completion; 
(2) compliance with the ARAR would pose a greater risk to 
human health and the environment than noncompliance; (3) it 
is technically impracticable to meet the ARAR; (4) the 
standard of performance of an ARAR can be met by an 
equivalent method; (5) a state ARAR has not been 
consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR compliance 
would not provide a balance between the protection achieved 
at a particular site and demands on the Superfund for other 
sites. These waiver options apply only to Superfund actions 
taken on-site, and justification for the waiver must be clearly 
demonstrated. 

The following sections discuss and analyze specific 
environmental regulations pertinent to operation of both lime 
treatment systems, including handling, transport, and disposal 
of both hazardous and non-hazardous treatment residuals. 
ARARs identified include: (1) CERCLA; (2) RCRA; (3) the 
Clean Air Act (CAA); (4) the Clean Water Act (CWA); 
(5) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); and (6) Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. These 
six general ARARs, along with additional state and local 
regulatory requirements (which may be more stringent than 
Federal requirements) are discussed below. Specific ARARs 
that may be applicable to the both lime treatment systems are 
identified in Table 3-2. 

3.11.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response , 
Compensation , and Liability Act 

CERCLA of 1980 authorizes the Federal government to 
respond to releases or potential releases of any hazardous 
substance into the environment, as well as to releases of 
pollutants or contaminants that may present an imminent or 
significant danger to public health and welfare or to the 
environment. As part of the requirements of CERCLA, EPA 
has prepared the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous substance 
response. The NCP, codified in Title 40 CFR Part 300, 
delineates methods and criteria used to determine the 
appropriate extent of removal and cleanup for hazardous waste 
contamination. 


The 1986 SARA amendment to CERCLA directed EPA to: 

• Use remedial alternatives that permanently and 
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility 
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. 

• Select remedial actions that protect human health and 
the environment, are cost-effective, and involve 
permanent solutions and alternative treatment or 
resource recovery technologies to the maximum 
extent possible. 

• Avoid off-site transport and disposal of untreated 
hazardous substances or contaminated materials 
when practicable treatment technologies exist 
(Section 121 [b]). 

In general, two types of responses are possible under 
CERCLA: removal and remedial actions. Removal actions 
are quick actions conducted in response to an immediate threat 
caused by release of a hazardous substance. Remedial actions 
involve the permanent reduction of toxicity, mobility, and 
volume of hazardous substances or pollutants. The lime 
treatment technologies implemented at the Leviathan Mine 
Superfund site fall under the purview of CERCLA and SARA; 
both lime treatment systems are operated on site and reduce 
the mobility of toxic metals through chemical precipitation 
and volume through metal concentration in filter cake and 
sludge. The technologies are protective of human health and 
the environment, cost effective, and permanent. 

Both lime treatment technologies can be applied at sites such 
as Leviathan Mine and operated as long-term CERCLA 
remedial actions; however, they may also be designed and 
operated for short term operation at a site in support of a 
CERCLA removal action, where immediate removal of toxic 
metals from a waste stream is necessary. 

3.11.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery' Act 

RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, was 
enacted in 1976 to address the problem of safe disposal of the 
enormous volume of municipal and industrial solid waste 
generated annually. The Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984, greatly expanded the scope and 
requirements of RCRA. Regulations in RCRA specifically 
address the identification and management of hazardous 
wastes. Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements for 
generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of 
hazardous waste, most of which are applicable to CERCLA 
actions. In order to generate and dispose of a hazardous 
waste, the site responsible party must obtain an EPA 
identification number. However, mining wastes are generally 
not subject to regulation under RCRA (see the Bevill 
Amendment at Section 3001 (a)(3)(A)(ii)), unless the waste is 
disposed of off-site. For treatment residuals determined to be 
RCRA hazardous, substantive and administrative RCRA 
requirements must be addressed if the wastes are shipped off 


44 



Table 3-2. Federal Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for both Lime Treatment Systems 


> 

p 

CQ 


p 

"TD 

3 

3 

< 

a 

U 

a 


o 

xii ■- 

cofl X; 

•-S 3 
oi 5 

c 


a 

< 


x X 
8 £ 
E 

"O 
C 

Cj 

o E 

21 < 


CL , 
CL 


c 

# o 

E 

N 

•C 

o 

u 

E 

co 

-c 

o 

•o 

c 

co 

3 

o 

E 

O 


c 

o 

*3 


CL 

a 

to 

E 

X 


«0 CO 

73 P 

S ^ 

C/D £ 


VO 

fN 

r 

CO 

CL. 

ed 

a 

U 

? c 

CO 

.1 


£ 

u 


G 

2 
< 
<- "O 

° s 

o O 

'§2 

■g < 
I ■g 

§ | 

C u 

jS fe 

X 3 
U 3 


CO 

*C 

a 

£ 

a 

a 

CO 

T3 

3 

CO 

OO 

c 

*C 

o 

E 

o 

E 

w 

CO 

*5 

c 

*o 

c 

CO 


co 

P 3 
T3 0) 

> E 
£ .£■ 
a =3 
o- 

Oi « 
— P 

•§ .& 
.a s 

a. § 
< a 


00 

c 

■> 

o 

E 

X 

t 

CO 

p 

oo 

c 

*C 

3 

T3 

co 

CO 

•— 

4J 

E 

o 

* • 

o 

4—• 

o 

tfc 

e 

p 

k- 

o 

£ 


T3 

3 

co 


a > 
e '5 

a co 


o 

fN 

© 

O' 

a 

a 

u 

ON 

CM 

< 

a: 

C/3 

O 


to a 

3 £ 
■S -S 

5 o 

CJ 

0 j 


X 

1 
CO 
P 


00 

c 

•e 

3 

T3 


00 
c 

c 

co © 

c •- 
o c 

.22 E 


CO 


1 §■ 
u = 
>> 
U 5 

CO *3 

*c . 

a to 

2 £ 
a i: 
a c 

03 O 

•o « 

C 00 
« c 

£1 
5 -5 
■o g> 
a £ 


o 

’* 

o 

-o 

3 

CO 

CO 

4> 

3 

o 

t 

ee 

a 


E 

4> 

o 

X 


a 

a 


CO 

£ 

CO CO 

•S g 

■3 i 

c — 

2 o 

C/3 Q. 


SI 

u 8" 


4> « 

u- ■* - 
CO 73 

CO P 

£ 1 

E E 

<L> 4> 

a 

o- E 

* — 

u 

V X) 

> 2 
1 § 
j« 

g 8 

O 

1) • jr 

X O 

^ S 
fc »■ 

^ C 

I E 
•= & 
s s 


o 

CO 


< s 

a CD 
U 
oi 

W co 

U *“ 


CO 

o 


- CO 

O 73 
~ u 
_ co 

5 ^ 
e- c 

O CO 
u. g 
Q. co 

a v 


—- C0 CiD 

_D __ u. 

* ? 2 
o £ j: 

o. r .2 

a > 

o JJ 
2 ^ 


o 

CJ 

E 


oo 

•g to 

3 4) 

-5 x 

73 j= 

•o ^ 

a > 
2 « 
<L> o 

£ c 
w CO 
00 ^ 
u- a 

E 2 
^ 8 
C 

— <b 
U w. 

S ’5 

CO Q- 
t— o 

C 0i 

l> 

b0 u> 

H flJ 


4) 

T3 

* 

C 


x .-3 3 


£ .a 

E .— 

3 > 

C "X 
.3 U 

co w 

"O C 

10 .2 

11 
2 | 
W CO 
4> C 

00 o 
3 « 
»- 

O <£ 

CO ^ 

•5 *3 

*3 C 
3 4) 
co Oj 
to «> 
4> Sq| 
o 


3 

4> 

E 

a 

*5 

O' 

4> 

4> 

> 

o 

£ 

a 

3 

3 

O 

e 

4> 

a 

4) 

E 

*C 

a 

£ 

a 

a 

CO 


4> 

*> 

£ 

a 


X) 

CO 

o 

"a 

a 

< 


3 

O 00 
X 3 

S 1 
8-1 
i § 

E 73 

“ £ 

00 c- 

3 — 
3 
4) 


3 g 

•s I 


<2 § 
■go 

1 g 

c 2 

2 § 

o 


_ 03 

o «c 

CO 4> 

a 

£ « 

E | 

co 3 
3 t 
CO O 

E T5 


rvi 

t; 

C0 

a 

tC 

a 

O 

o 

< 

O 


E 

a 

E 

oi 


S £ 

li 


c 

o S 
U H 


E 

c c 

O <0 

* Si 
2 6 

E ao 

<J= -g 

S-8 

V to 

W- 3 
O O 

^ E 

° E 

3 4> 
O — 
•— co 

Z 3 

4) X 

| ■§ 

a co 


o 

<N 


oi 

a 

CJ 

ON 

<N 

< 

S 

in 

O 


CO 

3 

O 


4> 

a 

o 


3 

cr 

4> 

Oi 


oo 


CO 

'C 
a 

£ . 

a ^ 

8- if 

T3 

£ "o 

W u- 
w O 
3 L> 
CO 4) 
> 

4) 

13 « 

u. 

4) 4> 

X ^ 
co 

CO CO 

E oo 

c c 

4> 

> 


3 

•f 3 
4> C0 


a 

>7 

cr 

3 

4) 

00 

3 

3 

O 

o 

T3 

3 

e0 


P 


4) 

I 

CO 

4> 

is 

CO 

3 


co 

* 


3 

4/ 


CO 

4) 


a 

a 

CO 


co 

-a 


oo 


4> 

E 


s 

(N 

r 

co 

a 

& 

a 

o 

o 


If 

0C S' 


3 

4> 73 

E S 

X CO 
CO 
4) 

is . 


oo 

3 

c 

o 

E 

o 

E 


4) .t 

E 3 

.3 O" 
~ 4) 

00 u 

3 

‘ c iS 

3 2 


CO 

3 

E 

0 

CJ 

4> 

00 

O 

3 

3 

X 

P 

4) 

O 


O 

Of) 


3 

oi 

4) 

CO 

00 

■c 

3 

a 


0 

3 

a 

00 

a 

3 

CO 


T3 

•3 

3 

3 

CO 

CO 


X 

3 


CO 

CO 

> 

3 

4) 

T3 

4) 

CO 

oc 

4> 

W 


oo 

3 

'a 

4T 

4) 

-l; 


x 

o 

•o 

3 

CO 

CO 

4) 

E 

3 

U 

r 

C0 

a 


3 

O 


E 

4> 

4> 

X 


a 

a 

CO 

eia 

X 

*>» 

to co 

1 I 
■§! 
^ 8. 




o 

o 

in 

r 

a 

Cu 

PC 

u. 

U ^ 

?! 

< > 

< 3 
r a* 

U 4> 


E 

£ 

oo 

£ § 


I i 


3 

o 

u 

4) CO 
00 — 
t- CO 

03 X 

X ^ 


O ,2 


4) O 

? I 

CJ 1/3 
' — CO 

g-’S 
«■§ 
o £ 
Z E 


T3 

4) 

CO 

3 

4> 

X 

CO 

E 


e 

4> 

E 

3 


3 

CO 


O 

a i- 

o % 

a oo 
g-.g 

3 

c 

TD 


CO 


to 

•E O 

co 41 
T3 O 
3 u 

2 g 

C/) to 


■ t: 

CO 

a 

a: 

a 

O 

o 

^r 


< 

< D 

OO OO 


s§ 


a 

3 


JL> 

u 


3 

.2 

2 co 

I "E 

3 co 

U 73 

£ 3 

4> 2 

O C/5 


fc 

o 

c 

•S 

to 

o 

a 

.22 

*3 

4) 1 

— 

CO 


4) 

T3 

3 

00 


3 

O w 

‘S £ 

.5 E 

i.s 

<u 3 
p 5?1 

*3 


t « gj 

p C0 CO 1 

£ 'g.^ 

^ g v 

>> g: ? 

c « = 
O -o ° 
« C £ 

E 10 .2 

* = Zi 

o 

G. ' 

Cu 

< 


> E 
u a 
H a. 

3 co 


3 

O 

E 

N 

•C 

4) 


co 

X 

CJ 

-o 

§ 

3 

o 


3 

4) 

T3 


a 

a 

CO 

E 

x 


C0 CO 
73 4> 

5 “ 


4> 

E 


NO 

fN 

t: 

CO 

a 

oi 

a 

O 

o 


2§.S 

* S' 


1.^ 

3" rz 

4) o 

^2 

JS •£ 

§ | 
T3 E 

co C 
a» 4) 

u a 

is 

1^ 

4) 

U CO 
«-» 
^ CO 

o *E 

73 CO 


CO Q_ 

S .2 

X T3 

c tr T3 
O C 
— CO 
co . 

8 2 

8- E 

X 

*T3 c 
t> 4) 
X 00 

CO 


O n*- 
u- o 
£ c 

JL) * — 
X 03 
« .2 
o a 
—• *-* 
a 3 
a 4> 
< S 


3 3 

4) CO 

E •£ 

4) w 

.i 3 
3 p 
cr bo 
o 3 

si 

1 s 

co 

M 

X 


O 

CO 

E 

t> 

p 

X 

>% 

CO 

a 

E 

CO 


E 

"E 

CO 

3 

T5 

4> 


CO 

J 

CO 

3 

O 

■E 

co 

a 

X 

4- 

o 

o 

s 

4> 

3 

4) 

00 

o 


a 

a 


co 

X 


CO 

"O 

3 

CO 


TP 

3 

CO 

<N 

X 

fN 

r 

CO 

a 

pi 

a 

u 

o 

u S 

0i (N 


c 

.0 g? 
£ 

co Q 

J d 

u . 

a p 

a E 

<i'Z 

p 

2 G. 
« o 

” C 
.2 £ 


O 

o 

V 

3 

-o 

U1 

o 

-J 

u 

2 


B. ^ O 


fi-i 

i-s 


E 

G 

To ^ 
>. .2 

e I 
.2 «S 
^ is 
E 
•a 
< 


-J 

u. 

2 -z 
> 
u 


05 

• P 

>; a 

CO CO 

! > 
4) JL ) 

E X) 

> C0 

^ 00 

X CO 
CO C 

.2® co 

& 2 
c p 
CO 00 

O w 
n X 

E p 

M (/) 

4) •- 
3 T3 
C w- 
y- o 

4> X 


o 

4) 

g> 

A 

X 

o 

to 


4» 

a 

a 

55 £ 

X Z 


CO 

CO 


c flJ 

CO L; 
T3 3 

£ R* 
2 p 
on a 


fN 

r 

05 

0. 

UL 

B. 

u 

o 

< 

U 


_ E 

CO X 

o a _c 
w p x 
*7} 00 co 
g P 

- C0 »r" 
p r- a 

i.g’S 

3 n « 

•S “ ^ 
E £ <2 
2 -2 « 
c ^ cn 

8=1 
E — o 

3 2 -C 

- E 
,2 G. 
05 £ 

? O 

Ji * " 

D W < 

H g 1 

S z O 


O 

< 

3 
O 

— X 
4) CO 

< .g 

g*| 

> 3 
O co 

O 4) 

NJ 

^ c 
c n « 

® <A « 
C “ < 

0 £ >- 

i | 

T5 ^ 


CO 

g c 


X 

CQ 

2 


S E * 

O .3 

3 

-7 ^ 

^ ^ Q 
o u J) 
£ §• « 
sc £ ™ 


U -o 
8 c 


11 u 11 

y < q 

QC 00 C/1 


u 

< 


Xi 

CO 


"O 

3 

CO 

3 " 

O 


O 

a 



U V U 


45 


Clean Water Act 




































site for disposal. If treatment residuals remain on-site, the 
substantive requirements of state disposal and siting laws and 
the Toxic Pits Control Act may be relevant and appropriate. 
Criteria for identifying RCRA characteristic and listed 
hazardous wastes are included in 40 CFR Part 261 Subparts C 
and D. Other applicable RCRA requirements include 
hazardous waste manifesting for off-site disposal and time 
limits on accumulating wastes. 

At Leviathan Mine, treatment residuals generated from the 
lime treatment systems include both RCRA hazardous and 
non-hazardous wastes. RCRA hazardous wastes are shipped 
off-site for disposal at a permitted TSD facility. Non- 
hazardous waste residuals are either stored or disposed of on 
site. Appropriate RCRA regulations are followed for 
generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of the 
Leviathan Mine lime treatment residuals determined to be 
RCRA hazardous. 

3.11.3 Clean A ir A ct 

The CAA establishes national primary and secondary ambient 
air quality standards for sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 
carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. It also 
limits the emission of 189 listed hazardous pollutants. States 
are responsible for enforcing the CAA. To assist in this, air 
quality control regions (ACQR) were established. Allowable 
emission limits are determined by the AQCR and AQMD 
subunits. The emission limits are established based on 
attainment of national ambient air quality standards. 

The CAA requires that TSD facilities comply with primary 
and secondary ambient air quality standards. Emissions 
resulting from lime and solids handling during the operation of 
both lime treatment systems may need to meet air quality 
standards. For example, dust generated during lime and 
residual solids handling may be regulated by a local AQMD. 
No air permits are required for either lime treatment system 
operated at the Leviathan Mine Superfund site; however, dust 
emissions are limited through careful handling and 
maintaining soil moisture during operation. 

3.11.4 Clean Water Act 

The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s 
waters by establishing Federal, State, and local discharge 
standards. If treated water is discharged to surface water 
bodies or publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), CWA 
regulations will apply. A facility discharging water to a 
navigable waterway must apply for a permit under the 
NPDES. NPDES discharge permits are designed as 
enforcement tools with the ultimate goal of achieving ambient 
water quality standards. Discharges to POTWs also must 
comply with general pretreatment regulations outlined in 40 


CFR Part 403, as well as other applicable state and local 
administrative and substantive requirements. 

Treated effluent from both lime treatment systems is 
discharged to Leviathan Creek, if EPA discharge standards are 
met. An NPDES permit is not required under CERCLA, 
although the substantive requirements of the CWA are met. 

3.11.5 Safe Drinking Water A ct 

The SDWA of 1974 and the Safe Drinking Water 
Amendments of 1986 require EPA to establish regulations to 
protect human health from contaminants in drinking water. 
The law authorizes national drinking water standards and a 
joint Federal-State system for ensuring compliance with these 
standards. The National Primary Drinking Water Standards 
are found at 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. These standards 
are expressed as maximum contaminant levels (MCL) and 
maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG). Under CERCLA 
(Section 121 (d)(2)(A)(ii)), remedial actions are required to 
meet MCLs and MCLGs when relevant and appropriate. State 
drinking water requirements may also be more stringent than 
Federal standards. 

Effluent from both lime treatment systems discharges to 
Leviathan Creek, a potential source of drinking water. 
Effluent from the treatment systems meets the EPA discharge 
standards; however, aluminum concentrations do not meet the 
Federal MCL. Attainment of the MCL for aluminum is fully 
achievable through addition of more lime or increased HRT; 
however, under the current EPA action memorandum, 
operation of the Leviathan Mine lime treatment systems to 
meet MCLs is not required. 

3.11.6 Occupational Safety and Health Act 

CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions must 
be conducted in accordance with OSHA requirements detailed 
in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, in particular Part 
1910.120, which provides for health and safety of workers at 
hazardous waste sites. On-site construction at Superfund or 
RCRA corrective action sites must be conducted in 
accordance with 29 CFR Part 1926, which describes safety 
and health regulations for construction sites. State OSHA 
requirements, which may be significantly stricter than Federal 
standards, also must be met. Workers involved with the 
construction and operation of a lime treatment system are 
required to have completed an OSHA training course and be 
familiar with OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous waste 
sites. Workers on hazardous waste sites must also be enrolled 
in a medical monitoring program. 

Minimum personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers at 
the Leviathan Mine site includes gloves, hard hat, steel-toe 
boots, and Tyvek® coveralls PPE, including respirators, eye 
protection, and skin protection is required when handling lime. 


46 



Based on contaminants and chemicals used at the site, the use 
of air purifying respirators or supplied air is not required. A 
man lift and personnel tie-off is suggested to reduce fall 
hazards when inspecting tanks, clarifiers, and elevated piping. 
Noise levels are generally not high, except during site 
preparation and solids handling, both of which involve the 
operation of heavy equipment. During these activities, noise 
levels are monitored to ensure that workers are not exposed to 
noise levels above a time-weighted average of 85 decibels 
over an eight-hour day. If noise levels exceed this limit, 
workers are required to wear hearing protection. 

3.11.7 State Requirements 

State and local regulatory agencies may require permits prior 
to operation of a lime treatment system. Most Federal permits 
will be issued by an authorized state agency. An air permit 
from the local AQMD may be required if air emissions in 
excess of regulatory standards are anticipated. State and local 
agencies will have direct regulatory responsibility for all 
environmental concerns. If a removal or remedial action 
occurs at a Superfund site, Federal agencies, primarily EPA, 
will provide regulatory oversight. If off-site disposal of 
contaminated waste is required, the waste must be taken to the 
disposal facility by a licensed transporter. 


3.12 Technology Applicability to Other Sites 

Lime treatment of AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine was 
evaluated for applicability to other mine sites based on the 
nine criteria used for decision making in the Superfund 
feasibility study process. The nine criteria and the results of 
the evaluation are summarized in Table 3-3. The active and 
semi-passive lime treatment systems evaluated were 
specifically designed to treat AMD and ARD at the mine site 
to EPA discharge standards for aluminum, arsenic, copper, 
iron, and nickel. In addition to the five primary target metals 
of concern, EPA identified cadmium, chromium, lead, 
selenium, and zinc as secondary water quality indicator 
metals. The lime treatment systems implemented at Leviathan 
Mine were also successful at reducing concentrations of these 
secondary metals in the AMD and ARD to below EPA 
discharge standards. Either treatment system can be modified 
to treat wastes with varying metals concentrations and acidity. 


47 



Table 3-3. Feasibility Study Criteria Evaluation for Both Lime Treatment Systems at Leviathan Mine 


Criteria 

Technology Performance 

Overall Protection of 

Human Health and the 
Environment 

Lime treatment has been proven to be extremely effective at reducing concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, nickel, 1 
and other dissolved metals in AMD and ARD. The lime treatment systems evaluated at Leviathan Mine reduced the 
concentrations of toxic metals in AMD and ARD. which was historically released to Leviathan Creek, to below EPA discharge 
standards, which were established to protect water quality and the ecosystem in Leviathan Creek and down-stream receiving 
waters. Resulting metals-laden solid wastes, that are determined to be hazardous based on State or Federal criteria, are 
transported to an approved off site TSD facility for proper disposal, again protecting human health and the environment from 
these hazardous materials. 

Compliance with Applicable 
or Relevant and Appropriate 
Requirements (ARAR) 

Both lime treatment systems are compliant with EPA discharge standards for the Leviathan Mine site. However, the effluent 
from the treatment systems does not meet the primary maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for aluminum or the secondary MCL 
for iron, which could easily be met with additional lime dosing. Hazardous process residuals must be handled in accordance 
with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and/or state of California hazardous materials transportation and disposal 
regulations. 

Long-term Effectiveness 
and Performance 

The active lime treatment system has been in operation at Leviathan Mine since 1999, and the semi-passive alkaline lagoon 
since 2001. After implementation of the active lime treatment system in 1999, no overflows of metals-laden AMD have 
occurred from the mine site. The treatment systems continue to be operated by the state of California and ARCO. Long-term 
optimization of the lime treatment system will likely reduce maintenance issues related to gypsum precipitation and lime feed 
problems in the process equipment, which are the major performance issues for the systems. Neither system is operational 
during the winter months due to freezing conditions and limited site access. During winter shutdown, ARD is discharged to 
Leviathan Creek, while AMD is captured and stored in the on site retention ponds. Return of ARD to the creek limits long term 
effectiveness of the treatment process; however, this will be addressed by capturing the ARD flow and redirecting it to the 
storage ponds during the winter months, or to an active lime treatment system housed in a heated structure. 

Reduction of Toxicity, 
Mobility, or Volume 
through Treatment • 

Lime treatment significantly reduces the mobifity and volume of toxic metals from AMD and ARD at Leviathan Mine. The 
dissolved toxic metals are precipitated from solution, concentrated, and dewatered removing toxic levels of metals from the 
AMD and ARD. However, lime treatment does produce a significant quantity of solid waste. Solid wastes generated from the 
lime treatment systems that are determined to be non-hazardous are disposed of on site. Solid wastes that exceed State or 
Federal hazardous waste criteria are transported to an approved off site TSD facility for proper disposal. 

Short-term Effectiveness 

The resulting effluent from the lime treatment systems does not pose a risk to human health. The hydrated lime solution and the 
metal hydroxide precipitates, each having hazardous chemical properties, may pose a risk to site workers during treatment 
system operation. Exposure to these hazardous chemicals must be mitigated through engineering controls and proper health and 
safety protocols. 

Implementability 

The lime treatment technology relies on a relatively simple chemical process and can be constructed using readily available 
equipment and materials. The technology is not proprietary, nor does it require proprietary equipment or reagents. Once 
installed, the systems can be optimized and maintained indefinitely. Winter shut downs and startups and routine maintenance 
all require significant time and manpower. The remoteness of the site also necessitates organized, advanced planning for 
manpower, consumables, and replacement equipment and supplies. 

Cost 

Total first year cost for the construction and operation of the active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode was 
S1.48M and 1.22M operated in monophasic mode. Total first year cost to construct and operate the semi-passive alkaline 
lagoon was $0.81M. The operation and maintenance costs associated with the treatment systems are: $16.97 per 1,000 liters at 
an AMD flow rate of 638.7 liters per minute (L/min) for the active lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode; $20.97 per 
1,000 liters at a combined AMD/ARD flow rate of 222.6 L/min for the system operated in monophasic mode; and $16.44 per 
1,000 liters at an ARD flow rate of 78.7 L/min for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system. Costs provided for each 
treatment system are dependent on local material, equipment, consumable, and labor costs, required discharge standards, and 
solid waste classification and disposal requirements. 

Community Acceptance 

The lime treatment technology presents minimal to no risk to the public since all system components are located at and 
treatment occurs on the Leviathan Mine site, which is a remote, secluded site. Hazardous chemicals used in the treatment system 
include lime and diesel fuel. These chemicals pose the highest risk to the public during transportation to the site by truck. The 
diesel generators create the most noise and air emissions at the site, again, because of the remoteness of the site, the public is not 
impacted. 

State Acceptance 

The state of California selected and is currently operating the active lime treatment system in biphasic mode, which indicates the 
State’s acceptance of the technology to treat AMD. Furthermore, the state of California concurs with the treatment of ARD by 
ARCO using the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system. However, the state of California has expressed concern about 
the return of ARD to Leviathan Creek during the winter months. Capture and on site storage of ARD over the winter months or 
year-round treatment would alleviate State concerns and is currently being evaluated by ARCO. 

AMD = Acid mine drainage EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ARCO = Atlantic Richfield Company TSD = Treatment, storage, and disposal 

ARD = Acid rock drainage 


48 




































SECTION 4 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 


This section presents an economic analysis of the active lime 
treatment and semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment systems 
used to treat AMD and ARD with chemistry, flow rates, and 
site logistical issues similar to those at the Leviathan Mine. 

4.1 Introduction 

The information presented in this section has been derived 
from (1) observations made and experiences gained during 
each technology evaluation, (2) data compiled from the 
Leviathan Mine Site Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 
(EE/CA) (EMC 2 2004a), and (3) personal communication with 
EMC 2 (EMC 2 2004b). The costs associated with designing, 
constructing, and operating the two lime treatment systems 
have been broken down into the following 11 elements and are 
assumed to be appropriate for extrapolation to other mine sites 
with similar conditions. Each cost element is further broken 
down to document specific costs associated with each 
treatment system. 

1) Site Preparation 

2) Permitting and Regulatory Requirements 

3) Capital Equipment 

4) System Startup and Shakedown 

5) Consumables and Rentals 

6) Labor 

7) Utilities 

8) Residual Waste Shipping, Handling and Disposal 

9) Analytical Services 

10) Maintenance and Modifications 

11) Demobilization 

This economic analysis is based primarily on data collected 
during the 2003 evaluation period for the active lime treatment 
system and the 2002 evaluation period for the semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system. During the 2003 evaluation 
period the active lime treatment system operated in 
monophasic mode for four weeks (June 18 to July 20, 2003) 
and treated 9,538,200 liters of a blend of AMD and ARD 
(adit, PUD, CUD, and Delta Seep) at an average rate of 
222.6 L/min. The active lime treatment system also operated 


in biphasic mode for approximately two weeks in 2003 (July 
28 to August 14, 2003), treating 13,247,500 liters of AMD 
from the retention ponds at an average rate of 638.7 L/min. 
The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system operated 
for 16 weeks in 2002 (June 26 to October 31, 2002), treating 
11,998,450 liters of ARD from the CUD at an average rate of 
78.7 L/min. Costs are presented for each system for their 
respective period of operation. The cost per 1,000 liters of 
water treated is presented as well as the present worth of the 
cumulative variable costs over 5, 10, and 15 years of 
treatment. Comparison of treatment costs between systems is 
problematic because of different source waters and flow rates. 
In addition, influent metals load and acidity varies 
significantly between sources. 

Section 4.2 presents a cost summary and identifies the major 
expenditures for each treatment system (costs are presented in 
2003 dollars). As with any cost analysis, caveats may be 
applied to specific cost values based on associated factors, 
issues and assumptions. The major factors that can affect 
estimated costs are discussed in Section 4.3. Assumptions 
used in the development of this economic analysis are 
identified in Section 4.4. Detailed analysis of each of the 11 
individual cost elements for both treatment systems is 
presented in Section 4.5. 

4.2 Cost Summary 

The initial fixed costs to construct the lime treatment systems 
are (1) $1,021,415 for the active lime treatment system 
operated in monophasic mode, (2) $1,261,076 for the active 
lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode, and (3) 
$297,482 for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment 
system. Fixed costs consist of site preparation, permitting, 
and capital and equipment costs. Site preparation includes 
system design, project management, and construction 
management. Capital and equipment costs include all 
equipment, materials, delivery, and initial system construction. 
Equipment and materials include reaction tanks, settling tanks, 
piping, pumps, valves, pH control equipment, automation 
equipment and satellite phone for reliable communication at a 


49 



remote site. A breakdown of fixed costs for each system is 
presented in Section 4.5. 

Variable costs to operate the active lime treatment system are 
$200,022 in monophasic mode and $224,813 in biphasic 
mode. The variable costs for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon 
treatment system are $195,151. Variable costs consist of 
system startup and shakedown, consumable and rentals, labor, 
utilities, waste handling and disposal, analytical services, 
maintenance and system modifications, and system 
winterization. A breakdown of variable costs for each system 
is presented in Section 4.5. 

The total first year cost to design, construct, and operate each 
treatment system; yearly operational costs for each treatment 
system; and the cumulative 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year 
treatment costs for each treatment system are summarized in 
Table 4-1. 

4.3 Factors Affecting Cost Elements 

A number of factors can affect the cost of treating AMD and 
ARD with either the active or semi-passive lime treatment 
systems. These factors generally include flow rate, 
concentration of contaminants, discharge standards, physical 
site conditions, geographical site location, and type and 
quantity of residuals generated. Increases in flow rate due to 
seasonal changes may raise operating costs of each system due 
to proportional increases in lime and polymer consumption. 
Flow rate increases can also impact fixed costs (number and 
size of reaction and settling tanks) when the minimum system 
or unit operation HRT is not sufficient to meet discharge 
standards. Operating costs are slightly impacted by increases 
in contaminant concentration, which may occur through 
evaporative reduction during the summer months. Increases in 
metals concentrations generally require additional lime dosing 
to attain discharge standards. Higher contaminant 
concentrations may also change the classification of a residual 
waste from a non-hazardous to a hazardous waste, requiring 
increased disposal costs. Restrictive discharge standards 
impact both fixed and variable costs. System designers and 
operators may be forced to extend system and unit operation 


HRTs (number and size of reaction and settling tanks) and 
increase lime dosage to meet stricter discharge requirements. 
Physical site conditions may impact site preparation and 
construction costs associated with excavation and grading of 
the treatment area and associated AMD retention and solids 
settling ponds. Cold climates may limit site access and 
shorten the treatment season due to freezing of piping, 
requiring AMD retention ponds and systems designed to 
operate at a high treatment rate during a shorter treatment 
season. The characteristics of the residual solids produced 
during treatment may greatly affect disposal costs, where 
production of hazardous solids will require off site disposal at 
a permitted TSD facility. 

4.4 Issues and Assumptions 

The following assumptions have been used in the development 
of this economic analysis: 

• AMD collection ponds have been previously 
constructed and do not require maintenance. 

• Solids settling ponds have been previously 

constructed and do not require maintenance. 

• Standard sized tanks are used as reactors and mixing 
tanks. 

• An appropriate staging area is available for 
equipment staging, setup and delivery. 

• Water treatment will occur only when the site is 
accessible. 

• Construction and maintenance of access roads is no 
required. 

• Each system will be operated continuously during the 
treatment period. 

• Each system will be operated unmanned during the 
night, but will not discharge without personnel on 
site. 

• All site power is obtained from on site diesel 
generators. 

• Utility water can be obtained on site. 


Table 4-1. Summary of Total and Variable Costs for Each Treatment System 


Descriptioii 

Active Lime Treatment 
System Monophasic Operation 

Active Lime Treatment 
System Biphasic Operation 

Semi-Passive Alkaline 
Lagoon Treatment System 

Total First Year Cost 

$1,221,437 

$1,478,842 

$474,428 

First Year Cost per 1,000 Liters Treated 

$128.05 

$111.63 

$39.54 

Total Variable Costs 

$200,022 

$224,814 

$197,200 

Variable Costs per 1,000 Liters Treated 

$20.97 

$16.97 

$16.44 

Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable Cost 
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$820,129 

$921,780 

$808,559 

Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable Cost 
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,404,871 

$1,578,998 

$1,385,051 

Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost 
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,821,783 

$2,047,585 

$1,796,081 


50 












































• Hazardous sludge will be disposed of at an off site 
TSD facility. 

• The site is located within 400 kilometers of the off¬ 
site TSD facility. 

• Non-hazardous sludge can be disposed of on site. 

• Permitting for the treatment systems is not required 
because of CERCLA status. 

• Treatment goals and discharge standards apply to 
those presented in Table 2-5. 

• Samples are collected and analyzed daily during 
discharge to verify attainment of discharge standards. 

4.5 Cost Elements 

Each of the 11 cost elements identified in Section 4.1 has been 
defined and the associated costs for each treatment system 
element presented below. The cost elements for the active 
lime treatment system are summarized in Table 4-2, and in 
Table 4-3 for the semi-active alkaline treatment lagoon. Cost 
element details for each treatment system are presented in 
Appendix C. 

4.5.1 Site Preparation 

Site preparation for each treatment system addresses only 
system design, construction management and project 
management. AMD retention and solids settling ponds and a 
cleared and graded treatment area were already in place; 
therefore costs for these activities are not provided in this 
analysis. However, for other sites, site preparation may 
require clearing vegetation, construction of AMD retention 
and solids settling ponds, and grading of an area for the 
treatment system. 

Active Lime Treatment System. System design is estimated 
at 20 percent of the capital and equipment cost for the active 
lime treatment system. Construction management is estimated 
at 15 percent and project management at 10 percent of the 
capital and equipment costs for the system (US Army Corp of 
Engineers [USACE] 2000). The total site preparation cost for 
the active lime treatment system operated in monophasic 
mode is $316,991; the total site preparation cost for the active 
lime treatment system operated in biphasic mode is $389,181. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon. The total site 
preparation cost for the alkaline lagoon treatment system is 
$88,812. Design, construction management, and project 
management costs were estimated at 20 percent, 15 percent, 
and 10 percent of the capital and equipment costs, 
respectively. The semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment 
system did require minor berm extension and site grading as 
well as pond liner installation; however, these costs are 
included as general site work items in the capital and 
equipment portion of this analysis rather than under site 
preparation. 


4.5.2 Permitting and Regulatory ; Requirements 

Permitting and regulatory costs vary depending on whether 
treatment occurs at a CERCLA-lead or a state- or local 
authority-lead site. At CERCLA sites such as Leviathan 
Mine, removal and remedial actions must be consistent with 
environmental laws, ordinances, and regulations, including 
Federal, State, and local standards and criteria; however, 
permitting is not required. 

At a state- or local authority-lead site, a NPDES permit, an air 
permit, and a storm water permit will likely be required as 
well as additional monitoring, which can increase permitting 
and regulatory costs. National Environmental Policy Act or 
state equivalent documentation may also be required for 
system construction. For a treatment system similar to those 
described here, constructed at a state- or local authority-lead 
site, permitting and regulatory costs are estimated to be 
$50,000. 

4.5.3 Capital Equipment 

Capital costs include delivery and installation of system 
equipment and assembly of system components. Equipment 
includes reaction, settling, and storage tanks; pumps, piping, 
and valves; pH control equipment; and automation equipment. 
This analysis assumes that an area of at least 4,050 to 
6,070 square meters is available for installation of equipment, 
system assembly, and staging supplies. The cost for 
excavation or grading of such a staging area is not included in 
this economic analysis. 

Active Lime Treatment System. Total capital expenditure 
for the active lime treatment system is $704,424 for the 
monophasic system and $864,847 for the biphasic system. 
The cost for installation of the active lime treatment system is 
approximately $668,353 for the monophasic system and 
$817,486 for the biphasic system. The cost to route AMD and 
ARD from four different sources (CUD, Delta Seep, Adit, and 
PUD) to the treatment system operated in monophasic mode is 
$16,592. The CUD and Delta Seep require capture, pumping, 
and routing of ARD approximately 500 meters to the 
treatment system. Routing of Adit/PUD flows approximately 
150 meters to the system does not require pumping. For 
biphasic operations, AMD is pumped directly from the 
retention pond adjacent to the treatment system at a cost of 
$930. An additional cost of $26,952 is incurred for pumping 
solids slurry from the Phase II clarifier to the pit clarifier for 
settling. Automation components of the system include an 
automatic pH control system and a remote monitoring/alarm 
system at a cost of approximately $17,985, including 
installation. A satellite phone to provide reliable 
communication at a remote location is estimated at $1,495. 


51 



Table 4-2. Summary of Cost Elements for the Active Lime 
Treatment System 


Description 

Monophasic 

Subtotal 

Biphasic 

Subtotal 

Site Preparation 

$316,990.86 

$389,181.24 

Permitting and Regulatory 

$0.00 

$0.00 

Capital and Equipment 

$704,424.14 

$864,847.22 

Conventional Lime Treatment 

System 

$668,352.64 

$817,485.72 

Phase I Reaction Module 

$93,361.44 

$93,361.44 

Phase I Clarifier Module 

$0.00 

$149,133.08 

Phase I Solids Separation 

$ 0.00 

$116,662.36 

Phase II Reaction Module 

$102,611.28 

$102,611.28 

Phase 11 Clarifier Module 

$125,267.24 

$125,267.24 

Phase II Solids Separation 

$116,662.36 

$0.00 

Lime Slurry Equipment 

$19,394.04 

$19,394.04 

Utility Water Delivery/Storage 

$87,966.28 

$87,966.28 

Fuel Storage 

$6,150.00 

$6,150.00 

System Assembly 

$116,940.00 

$116,940.00 

Collection Pumping and 
Appurtenances 

$16,592.00 

$27,882.00 

Capture and Route Delta Seep 

Flows to Channel Under Drain 

$6,214.00 

$0.00 

Route Delta Seep and Channel 

Under Drain to System 

$9,448.00 

$0.00 

Route Adit/ Pit Under Drain Flows 
to System 

$930.00 

$930.00 

Route Phase II Clarifier Slurry to 

Pit Clarifier 

$0.00 

$26,952.00 

Automation 

$17,984.50 

$17,984.50 

Remote Monitoring/ 

Alarm System 

$9,742.50 

$9,742.50 

pH Controller System 

$8,242.00 

$8,242.00 

Communications 

$1,495.00 

$1,495.00 

Total Fixed Cost 

$1,021,415.00 

$1,254,028.46 

System Start-up and Shakedown 

$17,980.80 

$22,400.00 

Consumables and Rentals 

$41,993.12 

$55,609.80 

Labor 

$73,699.12 

$66,760.00 

Utilities 

$20,982.00 

$17388.80 

Residual Waste Handling and 

Disposal 

$16,306.00 

$20,175.00 

Analytical Services 

$3,080.00 

$2,080.00 

Maintenance and Modifications 

$8,000.00 

$18,000.00 

Demobilization 

$17,980.80 

$22,400.00 

Total Variable Cost 

$200,021.84 

$224,813.60 

Total 1st Year Cost 

$1,221,436.84 

$1,478,842.06 

Total 1st Year Cost/1,000-Liters 

$128.05 

$111.63 

Total Variable Cost/1,000-Liters 

$20.97 

$16.97 

Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable 
Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent 

Rate of Return) 

$820,129.00 

$921,780.00 

Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable 
Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent 

Rate of Return) 

$1,404,871.00 

$1,578,998.00 

Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable 
Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent 

Rate of Return) 

$1,821,783.00 

$2,047,585.00 


Table 4-3. Summary 7 of Cost Elements for the Semi¬ 
passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 


Description 

Subtotal 

Site Preparation 

$88,812.03 

Permitting and Regulatory' Costs 

$0.00 

Capital and Equipment 

$188,415.25 

General Site Work 

$98,572.51 

Collection Systems 

$30,776.23 

Equipment 

$33,896.34 

Electrical 

$3,384.30 

Miscellaneous 

$21,785.87 

Total Fixed Cost 

$277,227.28 

System Start up and Shakedown 

$11,612.16 

Consumables and Rentals 

$41,715.52 

Labor 

$92,572.76 

Utilities 

$15,922.66 

Residual Waste Handling and Disposal 

$17,325.00 

Analytical Services 

$1,040.00 

Maintenance and Modifications 

$5,400.00 

Demobilization 

$11,612.16 

Total Variable Cost 

$197,200.26 

Total 1st Year Cost 

$474,427.54 

Total 1st Year Cost/1,000-Liters 

$39.54 

Total Variable Cost/1,000-Liters 

$16.44 

Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable Cost 
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$808,559.00 

Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable Cost 
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,385,051.00 

Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost 
(Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,796,081.00 


Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. Total 
capital expenditures for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon 
treatment system are approximately $188,415. These costs 
have been broken down into general site work, collection 
systems, equipment, electrical, and miscellaneous costs. 
General site work ($98,573) makes up nearly one-half of the 
total capital and equipment cost and includes general site 
grading, lining of the alkaline lagoon, extending the northern 
lagoon berm to increase space for reaction tanks and bag 
filters, and installing silt curtains within the lagoon. 
Approximately 16 percent of the capital costs ($30,776) 
consist of the collection systems used to route CUD flow to 
the treatment system. Approximately 18 percent of the capital 
costs ($33,896) consist of the reaction and storage tanks, 
pumps, compressors, and aerators used in system construction. 
The remainder of the capital costs ($25,170) consists of 
electrical equipment, monitoring equipment, and storage bins. 
All alkaline lagoon treatment system capital costs are loaded 
to account for system assembly. The total capital cost for the 
semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system is 
approximately one-quarter the cost of the active lime 
treatment system. 


52 





















































































4.5.4 Startup and Fixed Costs 

System start-up and shakedown includes the labor to setup 
pumps, pipes, and rental equipment, test system hydraulics, 
startup the system, and optimize the system to meet discharge 
standards. System startup and shakedown occurs at the 
beginning of each treatment season as the system is cleaned 
and disassembled each winter. After system assembly and 
start up, a shake down is necessary to ensure that any 
problems are identified and addressed prior to optimization. 
The system is then optimized for the desired source water, 
flow rate, and discharge standards. This process generally 
requires 1.5 to 2 weeks of labor for a field crew of four who 
are familiar with the system. Additional time required for 
additional optimization has been built into system assembly 
costs. 

Active Lime Treatment System. The estimated start up cost 
for the active lime treatment system is $17,981 for operation 
in monophasic mode and $22,400 for operation in biphasic 
mode. It is assumed that assembly and shake down of either 
system will take a four-person crew 10 8-hour work days to 
complete. The cost difference between the two modes of 
operation is due to the different documented labor rates for 
system operators. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon. The estimated 
start up cost for the alkaline lagoon treatment system is 
$11,612. It is assumed that assembly and shake down of the 
semi-passive alkaline treatment lagoon system will take a 
four-person crew eight 8-hour working days to complete. 
Startup and shakedown costs for this system are less than the 
active lime treatment system due to the simplicity of system 
design. 

4.5.5 Consumables and Supplies 

Consumables and rentals for each system consist of chemicals 
and supplies required to treat AMD and ARD, including lime, 
polymer, bag filters, health and safety equipment, field trailer 
rental, storage connex rental, compressor rental, and heavy 
equipment rental. It is assumed that field trailers, compressors 
and heavy equipment will be used from the time system 
assembly begins until winterization is complete. Storage 
connexes will be rented year round. 

Active Lime Treatment System. Total consumable and 
rental costs for the active lime treatment system are $41,993 
for monophasic operation and $55,610 for biphasic operation. 
The largest consumable expenditure is lime. Lime was 
consumed at a rate of approximately 1.294 grams of dry lime 
per liter of AMD and ARD treated during monophasic 
operation, at a cost of $4,978. Under biphasic operation, 
3.397 grams of dry lime was consumed per liter of AMD 
treated at a cost of $16,864. The largest rental cost is for 
equipment storage from year to year. It is assumed that five 


storage connexes will be necessary for this system, operated in 
either mode. Storage connexes for either mode cost $19,500 
per year, regardless of the duration of the treatment season. 
One field trailer is used from the time of system mobilization 
until winterization is completed. A mobilization and set-up 
fee is included for each field trailer and connex. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon System. Total 
consumable and rental costs for the semi-passive alkaline 
treatment lagoon are $41,716. The largest consumable 
expenditure is lime. Lime was consumed at a rate of 
approximately 1.467 grams of dry lime per liter of ARD 
treated, at a cost of $7,100. The largest rental cost is for 
equipment storage year to year. Three storage connexes were 
necessary for this system. Storage connexes cost $11,700 per 
year, regardless of the duration of the treatment season. One 
field trailer is used from the time of system mobilization until 
winterization is completed. A mobilization and set-up fee is 
included for each field trailer and connex. 

4.5.6 Labor 

Labor costs for each system include the field personnel 
necessary to operate the system and to address day-to-day 
maintenance issues. Labor associated with system startup and 
shakedown and system winterization is included in 
Sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.11, respectively. In addition to the full¬ 
time field crew, approximately one-half of the labor cost is 
dedicated to project and program management, engineering, 
and administrative support. 

Active Lime Treatment System. Field personnel are 
necessary to operate the system, address day-to-day 
maintenance issues, drop solid wastes from the filter press, 
collect discharge monitoring samples, monitor unit operation 
pH and flow rates, and to adjust lime and polymer dosage 
rates. Field technicians accounted for $39,052 out of the total 
labor expenditure of $73,699 for monophasic operations. 
Field technicians accounted for $32,900 out of the total labor 
expenditure of $66,760 for biphasic operations. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. Labor 
costs for the semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system 
include system operation, addressing day-to-day maintenance 
issues, collecting discharge monitoring samples, monitoring 
unit operation pH and flow rates, adjusting lime dosage and 
aeration rates, and discharging treated water. Due to the more 
passive nature of the alkaline lagoon treatment system, less 
operating and maintenance labor is necessary in comparison to 
the active lime treatment system. Field technician labor 
accounted for $58,061 out of the total labor expenditure of 
$92,573 during the evaluation period. Total field technician 
labor exceeded that for the active lime treatment system due to 
the longer period of operation. 


53 




4.5.7 Utilities 


Due to the remote nature of the site, utilities are not available. 
Utility costs generally consist of the cost to lease generators, 
generator fuel, portable toilet rental, and satellite phone 
service. Water is gravity fed to the treatment system from 
Leviathan Creek. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
(SCADA) service through a satellite uplink has also been 
included for the active lime treatment system. 

Active Lime Treatment System. Generator rental for the 
active lime treatment system includes one primary 125 kW 
generator and one backup 125 kW generator. Utilities are 
generally necessary from system assembly until system 
winterization is complete. Utility costs to support operation of 
the system in are $20,982 for operation in monophasic mode 
and $17,389 for operation in biphasic mode. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. 

Generator rental for the treatment system includes one primary 
40 kW generator and one backup 25 kW generator. Utilities 
are generally necessary from system assembly until system 
winterization is complete. Total utility costs to support 
operation of the system are $15,923. Utility costs for the 
system are lower than the active lime treatment system due to 
the smaller number and size of pumps and mixers as well as a 
lower flow rates. 

4.5.8 Residual Waste Shipping , Handling , and 
Disposal 

The lime treatment process produces a large quantity of metal 
hydroxide sludge and filter cake. Solid waste residuals 
produced by the treatment systems were evaluated for 
hazardous waste characteristics. Solid waste residuals that 
were determined to be hazardous were transported to an off¬ 
site TSD facility for disposal; while non-hazardous solids 
were disposed of on-site or shipped to a non-hazardous waste 
repository. 

Active Lime Treatment System. The filter cake produced 
during the active lime treatment process generally contains 
levels of arsenic exceeding State hazardous waste criteria. 
The active lime treatment system operated in monophasic 
mode generated 15.2 dry tons of hazardous filter cake, while 
biphasic operations generated 21.1 dry tons of hazardous filter 
cake and 93.6 dry tons of pit clarifier solids. The cost to 
remove this hazardous waste to an off-site TSD facility is 
approximately $16,306 for monophasic filter cake and 
$10,275 for biphasic filter cake. Non-hazardous waste from 
the biphasic mode must be removed from the pit clarifier 
approximately every third year and disposed of in an on site 
storage pit. The cost to dispose of the dewatered 
non-hazardous sludge is approximately $30,000 per event. 
This cost is divided evenly between each year for this analysis 
and assumed to be $9,900 for the evaluation period. 


Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. The 

semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system generated 
22.1 dry tons of non-hazardous bag filter and lagoon solids. 
Removal of solids from the bag filters is performed at the end 
of each treatment season; the solids disposed of off-site in a 
non-hazardous waste repository at a total cost of $17,325. 
Solids accumulation in the treatment lagoon occurs at a slow- 
enough rate to require removal once every five years. 
Excavation and disposal of lagoon solids has not yet occurred, 
therefore no associated cost has been included in this analysis. 

4.5.9 A n alytical Services 

Analytical costs associated with each lime treatment system 
consist of daily sampling to verify compliance with discharge 
standards. One effluent grab sample is collected each day 
during continuous discharge or prior to batch discharge and 
analyzed for metals using EPA Methods 6010B and 7470 to 
demonstrate compliance with discharge standards. A grab 
sample of each solid waste stream is also collected to support 
waste characterization and disposal. Each grab solid sample is 
analyzed for metals using EPA Methods 6010B and 7471 and 
leachable metals using the EPA Methods 1311, 6010B, and 
7470 for comparison to Federal RCRA and TCLP criteria and 
California DI WET/EPA Method 6010B for comparison to 
State TTLC and STLC criteria. 

Active Lime Treatment System. The cost for daily 
analytical services is $2,800 for the active lime treatment 
system operated in monophasic mode and $1,520 for biphasic 
operations. Analysis of one filter cake sample generated 
during monophasic operations is required at a cost of $280; 
while analysis of a filter cake and pit clarifier sludge sample 
generated during biphasic operations is required at a cost of 
$560. Solids samples are collected at the end of the treatment 
season to support waste characterization and disposal. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. The 

semi-passive alkaline lagoon treatment system discharges in 
batches approximately every 18 days. Six effluent grab 
samples were analyzed during the evaluation period at a total 
cost of $1,040. Analysis of bag filter and lagoon solids 
samples, at a cost of $560, is required to support waste 
characterization and disposal at the end of the treatment 
season. 

4.5.10 Maintenance and Modifications 

Maintenance and modifications costs include regular 
equipment replacement due to wear and tear. Equipment 
expected to require replacement includes plugged lime and 
polymer delivery lines, piping, pumps, mixers and filter press 
plates. 


54 



Active Lime Treatment System. The annual equipment 
replacement cost for the active lime treatment system operated 
in monophasic and biphasic modes is approximately $8,000 
and $18,000, respectively. Equipment expected to be replaced 
each treatment season includes: sludge pumps and piping, 
aerators, pH probes, and lime and polymer delivery tubing. 
Peristaltic pumps, filter press plates, clarifier plates, mixers 
and water delivery pumps are expected to be replaced 
approximately every five years. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System. The 

annual equipment replacement cost for the alkaline lagoon 
treatment system is approximately $5,400. The lime 
recirculation pumps, lime delivery tubing, and pH probes are 
expected to be replaced each treatment season. Water delivery 
pumps, mixers and trash pumps are expected to be replaced 
approximately every five years. 

4.5.11 Dent obilization 

Demobilization includes labor to clean, disassemble, and store 
system components at the end of each treatment season. 
Demobilization activities include draining unused reagents 
from the system, cleaning the interior of reaction tanks, lime 
slurry tanks, and clarifiers; disassembly, cleaning, and storage 
of pumps and piping; returning of rental equipment; and 
consolidation and off-site disposal of hazardous waste. 


Active Lime Treatment System. The estimated cost for 
demobilization of the active lime treatment is $17,981 for 
monophasic operations, and $22,400 for biphasic operations. 
It is assumed that demobilization of either mode of operation 
will require ten 8-hour work days for a four-person crew to 
complete. The cost difference is due to the different 
documented labor rates for the system operators. 

Semi-Passive Alkaline Treatment Lagoon. The estimated 
cost for demobilization of the alkaline lagoon treatment 
system is $11,612. It is assumed that demobilization of the 
system will require eight 8-hour work days for a four-person 
crew to complete. Demobilization costs for this system are 
less than the active lime treatment system due to the simplicity 
of system design and fewer overall components. 


55 



SECTION 5 

DATA QUALITY REVIEW 


The analytical data collected during the SITE demonstration 
were collected in accordance with the 2002 and 2003 
TEP/QAPPs (Tetra Tech 2002 and 2003). As part of the 
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements 
specified in the TEP/QAPPs, any deviations from the 
sampling plans, such as missed sampling events, changes in 
sampling locations, or changes in analytical methods, were 
documented throughout the duration of the demonstration and 
are presented in Section 5.1. Documentation of these 
deviations is important because of the potential effects they 
have on data quality and on the ability of the data to meet the 
project objectives. 

As part of the QA/QC data review, sample delivery groups 
(SDG) received from the laboratory underwent data validation 
through a third-party validator to ensure that the data 
generated is of a quality sufficient to meet project objectives. 
As specified in the TEP/QAPPs, data packages underwent 10 
percent full validation in accordance with EPA validation 
guidance (EPA 1995). A Summary of the data validation 
performed on the lime treatment technology SITE 
demonstration data is presented in Section 5.2. 

5 .1 Deviations from TEP/QAPP 

Due to various operating issues, several changes were required 
in the operation and sampling of the lime treatment systems 
during the SITE demonstration. One deviation from the 
TEP/QAPP that affected the sampling design for both 
treatment systems affected the ability to conduct the four- 
consecutive-day sampling events. Although initially planned 
so that discharge data could be compared to EPA’s 4-day 
average discharge standard, these consecutive day sampling 
events were not conducted. As an alternative, the SITE 
demonstration team determined that comparing the average 
concentration from four consecutive sampling events would be 
sufficient to complete the effluent discharge comparisons 
against the four-day discharge standards. Deviations from the 
TEP/QAPPs related to the operation of each treatment system 
were documented throughout the duration of the SITE 
demonstration and are presented below. 


Active Lime Treatment System 

• The daily order of sample collection was modified 
due to system upsets and the need to sample the 
system at equilibrium. Detailed internal sample 
collection was also postponed until later in the 
sampling season to ensure that the pit clarifier was 
equilibrated. 

• Samples were not collected at the AMD influent box 
due to lack of accessibility, instead a sampling port 
was installed in the system influent pipe. 

• Samples were not collected from three locations due 
to changes in system operation. Phase II clarifier 
overflow (S6) has been discontinued; instead the 
solids slurry is discharged to the pit clarifier. Sample 
location S9 (pit clarifier effluent) is now equivalent 
to sample location S2 (system effluent), as pH 
adjustment no longer occurs at the effluent box above 
location S2. Sample location S10 (the first Phase I 
solids holding tank overflow) is no longer present, 
instead sample location S11 (the second Phase I 
solids holding tank overflow) combines the overflow 
from both tanks. 

• Analyzed an effluent split sample collected by 
RWQCB to verify their laboratory findings. 

• Analyzed 2002 monophasic trial samples collected 
by RWQCB at the treatment system influent and 
Phase I Clarifier effluent locations. Submitted both 
filtered and unfiltered grab samples for analysis. 

• Collected an unsettled solids slurry sample at the pit 
clarifier influent (S7) for a field solids settling test. 

• Collected samples at pit clarifier effluent (S2), Phase 
II clarifier influent (S5), and pit clarifier influent (S7) 
for total solids and TSS analyses. Data will be used 
in conjunction with field solids settling test results to 
assess clarifier efficiency. 

• Collected a field blank and equipment rinsate sample 
to assess the source of trace levels of mercury 
showing up in the analytical data. 


56 



• Collected pit clarifier sludge (S7), monophasic trial 
sludge (S2), and filter cake (SI3) solids samples at 
the direction of the EPA task order manager (TOM) 
to assess the content and leachability of metals in the 
treatment system waste streams. The solids samples 
were analyzed for total metals and metals after TCLP 
extraction, SPLP extraction, and California DI WET 
extraction. The solids samples were also analyzed 
for total solids and percent moisture in order to 
estimate the likely increase in metals concentration 
after drying. 

Alkaline Treatment Lagoon 

• Detailed internal sample collection was postponed 
until later in the sampling season to ensure that the 
lagoon had equilibrated. 

• Samples were not collected at S7 (Cell 3) due to 
changes in system operation. System effluent no 
longer discharges through the snorkel in the lagoon, 
instead the system effluent is periodically pumped 
out of Cell 3. Therefore, the system effluent 
sampling location (S2) was moved to Cell 3. 

• Sample collection at locations SI la (bag filter 
influent) and SI lb (bag filter effluent) was moved to 
the same day as sample collection at location S4 
(lagoon influent). Collecting samples on the same 
day allowed correlation of total suspended solids data 
collected at Bag Filter No. 1 and from the lagoon 
influent (discharge from all four bag filters). 

• Collected a solids sample from Bag Filter No.l (SI 1) 
at the direction of the EPA TOM to assess the content 
and leachability of metals in the treatment system 
waste stream. The solids sample was analyzed for 
total metals and metals after TCLP extraction, SPLP 
extraction, and California DI WET extraction. The 
solids sample was also analyzed for total solids and 
percent moisture in order to estimate the likely 
increase in metals concentration after drying. 

5.2 Summary of Data Validation and PARCC 
Criteria Evaluation 

The critical data quality parameters evaluated during data 
validation include precision, accuracy, representativeness, 
completeness, and comparability (PARCC). Evaluation of 
these critical parameters provides insight on the quality of the 
data and is essential in determining whether the data is of 
sufficient quality to meet project objectives. A summary of 
the data validation for the SITE demonstration data and an 
evaluation of the PARCC parameters for the primary target 
analytes are presented below. 

Based on data validation, only two metals results were 
rejected in the samples analyzed. Because the laboratory 


failed to analyze an SPLP leachate method blank for one SDG, 
detected results for arsenic and chromium were rejected in the 
SPLP leachate extract for sludge sample 3-BP-08-2-S11-S-G. 
No other sample results were affected. In addition to the 
rejected data, some metals data were qualified as estimated 
based on other QC issues. QC issues resulting in qualified 
data typically consisted of problems with initial and 
continuing calibration, calibration and method blank 
contamination, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) interference 
check sample analysis, percent recovery and relative percent 
difference values outside of acceptable values, ICP serial 
dilution problems, and contract required detection limits 
(CRDL) standard recovery problems, and/or method blank 
contamination. An evaluation of the PARCC parameters 
follows. 

Precision: Precision for the SITE demonstration data was 
evaluated through the analysis of matrix duplicates (MD) 
samples for metals. The precision goal for MD samples was 
established at less than or equal to 20 percent for relative 
percent difference (RPD). Over the duration of the SITE 
demonstration, a total of 20 aqueous samples and four sludge 
samples were collected from the treatment systems and 
analyzed in duplicate. Where one or both metals results in a 
duplicate pair were below the practical quantitation limit 
(PQL) or not detected, the RPD was not calculated. Out of the 
five primary target metals and the five secondary water quality 
indicator metals, RPDs for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 
copper, iron, lead, selenium, and/or zinc exceeded the 
20 percent RPD criteria in many samples. Corresponding 
metals data for associated samples within each SDG were 
qualified as estimated based on duplicate precision problems; 
however, no data was rejected. 

Accuracy: Accuracy for the SITE demonstration data was 
evaluated through the analysis of matrix spike (MS) samples 
for the metals analyses. The accuracy goal for MS samples 
was established at 75 to 125 percent for percent recovery. 
Over the duration of the SITE demonstration, a total of 17 
aqueous samples were collected from the lime treatment 
systems and analyzed as MS samples. In addition, two sludge 
samples and six metals leachate samples were analyzed as MS 
samples. No data for the primary target metals or the 
secondary water quality indicator metals were qualified based 
on MS recovery problems. However, in several MS samples 
poor spike recoveries were observed when metals 
concentrations in the sample greatly exceeded the spike 
concentration. In several of the MS samples where poor 
recoveries were observed for aluminum, arsenic, iron, and/or 
nickel, the concentrations of these target metals in the samples 
exceeded four times the spike concentration. Based on EPA 
guidance (EPA 1995), sample data were not qualified based 
on poor spike recoveries for these samples. 

Representativeness: Representativeness expresses the degree 
to which sample data accurately and precisely represent the 
characteristics of a population, parameter variations at a 


57 



sampling point, or an environmental condition that they are 
intended to represent. Representativeness is a qualitative 
parameter; therefore, no specific criteria must be met. 
Representative data were obtained during the SITE 
demonstration through selection of proper sampling locations 
and analytical methods based on the project objectives and 
sampling program described in Section 2.3. As specified in 
the TEP/QAPPs, proper collection and handling of samples 
avoided cross contamination and minimized analyte losses. 
The application of standardized laboratory procedures also 
facilitated generation of representative data. 

To aid in the evaluation of sample representativeness, 
laboratory-required method blank samples were analyzed and 
evaluated for the presence of contaminants. Sample data 
determined to be non-representative by comparison with 
method blank data was qualified, as described earlier in this 
section. With the exception of the rejected metals data, the 
data collected during the SITE demonstration are deemed 
representative of the chemical concentrations, physical 
properties, and other non-analytical parameters that were 
being sampled or documented. 

Completeness: Completeness is a measure of the percentage 
of project-specific data deemed valid. Valid data are obtained 
when samples are collected and analyzed in accordance with 
QC procedures outlined in the TEP/QAPPs and when none of 
the quality control (QC) criteria that affect data usability are 
significantly exceeded. The rejected data discussed above are 
deemed invalid and affect the completeness goal. Other 
factors not related to the validity of the data can also affect 
completeness, such as lost or broken samples, missed 
sampling events, or operational changes by the system 
operator. 

In 2003, the active lime treatment system was evaluated 
primarily during monophasic operations; however, a single 
day sampling event was conducted during biphasic operations. 
A complete evaluation of the unit operations of the system 
operated in biphasic mode was conducted during a single 
event in 2003 for comparison to the 2002 biphasic evaluation 
period. 


Evaluation of the system during monophasic operations in 
2003 represented a significant departure from the TEP/QAPP; 
however, the sample design was retained and only modified 
where a sampling location was no longer valid or duplicative. 
The duration of the monophasic evaluation period was also 
reduced from a planned six week period to four weeks by the 
system operator. 

In 2002, the planned six week evaluation period of the active 
lime treatment system during biphasic operations, though 
limited in scope, was fully achieved. Two planned sampling 
events were canceled due to system failures; however, two 
additional sampling events were added to the schedule. The 
planned four week evaluation period of the semi-passive 
alkaline treatment lagoon, though limited in scope, was also 
fully achieved. 

As specified in the TEP/QAPPs, the project completeness goal 
for the SITE demonstration was 90 percent. Based on an 
evaluation of the data that was collected and analyzed and 
other documentation, completeness for the project was greater 
than 99 percent. Deviations from the TEP/QAPP due to 
unplanned changes in system operation by the system operator 
did not impact the validity of the data. Instead, the unplanned 
changes provided an opportunity to evaluate different modes 
of system operation and system response to changes in source 
water chemistry, flow rate, and HRT. 

Comparability: The comparability objective determines 

whether analytical conditions are sufficiently uniform 
throughout the duration of the project to ensure that reported 
data are consistent. For the SITE demonstration, the 
generation of uniform data was ensured through adherence of 
the contracted laboratory to specified analytical methods, QC 
criteria, standardized units of measure, and standardized 
electronic deliverables in accordance with the TEP/QAPPs. 
Comparability for the SITE demonstration data was also 
ensured through third party validation. As a result of these 
efforts, no data comparability issues were documented by the 
project team for this project. 


58 



SECTION 6 

TECHNOLOGY STATUS 


The technology associated with the active and semi-passive 
lime treatment systems is not proprietary, nor are proprietary 
reagents or equipment required for system operation. Both 
systems have been demonstrated at full-scale and are currently 
operational at Leviathan Mine. The treatment systems are 
undergoing continuous refinement and optimization to address 
lime delivery and scaling problems. The semi-passive 
alkaline lagoon treatment system has recently been 
reconfigured to include a rotating cylinder treatment system 
(RCTS) in place of the reaction tanks. Lime is combined with 
ARD in a mixing tank, mixed for a short period of time, then 
pumped to the RCTS for extend aeration. The new RCTS has 
decreased the lime requirement by over 50 percent, resulting 
in reagent and solids disposal cost savings of $0.52 per 1,000 
liters (Tsukamoto 2004). Because of the success of lime 
treatment at Leviathan Mine, the state of California and 


ARCO are also evaluating the potential effectiveness, 
implementability, and costs for year-round treatment. Applied 
to other AMD- or ARD-impacted sites, the lime treatment 
systems would require only bench scale testing to assess lime 
requirement and flocculent dosage (as applicable) prior to 
design and construction of operational systems. The systems 
are fully scalable, requiring only modification of reaction tank 
and clarifier size to achieve the required unit operation and 
system HRT necessary for lime contact and precipitate 
settling. The active lime treatment system has been operated 
at flows ranging from 210.5 to 663 L/min using the same 
process equipment. Lower flow rates (62 to 111 L/min) are 
preferable for operation of the semi-passive alkaline treatment 
lagoon due to limitations on the number of bag filters required 
for initial precipitate removal. 


59 



REFERENCES CITED 


Analyze-It. 2004. Analyze-It Statistical Software. 

Version 1.71. September. Available on-line: 
http://www.anal yse-it.com/ 

Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). 2003. “Draft 
Leviathan Mine Site 2002 Early Response Action 
Completion Report.” Prepared for ARCO by Unipure 
Environmental. March. 

ARCO. 2004. “Draft Final Leviathan Mine Site 2002 Early 
Response Action Completion Report.” Prepared for 
ARCO by Unipure Environmental. April. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan 
Region (RWQCB). 1995. “Leviathan Mine 5-year Work 
Plan.” July. 

RWQCB. 2003. “2002 Year-End Report for Leviathan 
Mine.” February. 

RWQCB. 2004. “2003 Year-End Report for Leviathan 
Mine.” February. 

EMC 2 . 2004a. “Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for 
Leviathan Mine.” March 31, 2004. 

EMC 2 . 2004b. Memorandum regarding 2001/2002 treatment 
cost summary. Transmitted by Monika Johnson, EMC 2 to 
Matthew Wetter, Tetra Tech EM Inc. September 3, 2004. 

State of California. 2004. “Waste Extraction Test.” 

California Code of Regulations. Title 22, Division 4- 
Environmental Health. July. 

Tetra Tech EM Inc (Tetra Tech). 2002. “2002 Technology 
Evaluation Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan, 
Leviathan Mine Superfund Site.” Alpine County, 
California. April. 

Tetra Tech. 2003. “2003 Technology Evaluation Plan/ 
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Leviathan Mine 
Superfund Site.” Alpine County, California. August. 


Tetra Tech. 2004. “Draft Technology Evaluation Report Data 
Summary, Demonstration of Biphasic, Monophasic, and 
Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment Technologies, 

Leviathan Mine Superfund Site.” Alpine County, 
California. June. 

Tsukamoto, Tim. 2004. Personal communication regarding 
reduction in lime costs resulting from implementation of 
the RCTS at the alkaline lagoon. August 5. 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). 2000. A Guide to 
Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates during the 
Feasibility> Study. July 2000. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. “CLP 
SOW for Inorganics Analysis, Multi-Media, 
Multi-Concentration.” Document Number ILM04.0. 

EPA. 1997. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste/Chemical Methods, Laboratory, Volume 1A 
through 1C, and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846, 

Third Edition (Revision III). Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response. 

EPA. 2000. “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: 
Practical Methods for Data Analysis.” EPA QA/G-9. 
EPA/600/R-96/084. 

EPA. 2002. “Remedial Action Memorandum: Request for 
Approval of Removal Action at the Leviathan Mine, 
Alpine County, CA.” From: Kevin Mayer, RPM, Site 
Cleanup Branch, EPA Region 9, To: Keith Takata, 
Director, Superfund Division, USEPA. July 18. 

EPA. 2004. ProUCL Version 3.0. EPA Statistical Program 
Package. April. Available on-line: 
http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/tsc/form.htm 


60 





APPENDIX A 

SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TABLES 


61 



Table A-1. 2003 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations 


Comments 




MS/MD 












MS/MD 





MS/MD 










Hardness 

X 


X 










X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

Alkalinity 

X 


X 










X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

Sulfate 

X 


X 










X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

TDS 

X 


X 










X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

X 


X 


X 


X 



TSS 

X 


X 










X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

X 


X 


X 


X 



Metals 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Project 

Objective 

PI, P2, SG2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG2 

PI, P2 

Csl 

CL 

Q- 

PI, P2 

CNl 

CL 

5u 

PI, P2 

rd 

Cl. 

£ 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SGI 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SGI 

CL 

cl 

SGI 

SGI 

IDS 

IDS 

SGI 

IDS 

SGI 

SGI 

SGI 

PI, P2, SGI 

<N 

0_ 

z 

PI, P2, SGI 

PI, P2 

cl 

a. 

Filtered? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Location 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Phase I Reactor Effluent 

Phase I Reactor Effluent 

Phase II Reactor Effluent 

Phase 11 Reactor Effluent 

Phase 11 Reactor Influent 

Clarifier 11 Settled Solids 

Clarifier II Settled Solids 

Phase II Clarifier Influent 

Phase II Clarifier Influent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Pond 4 Discharge 

Date 

6/24/2003 

6/24/2003 

6/24/2003 

6/24/2003 

6/26/2003 

6/26/2003 

6/26/2003 

6/26/2003 

7/1/2003 

7/1/2003 

7/1/2003 

7/1/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/3/2003 

7/9/2003 

7/9/2003 

7/9/2003 

7/9/2003 

7/10/2003 

a 

V 

a. 

E 

a 

tZ) 

I 3-BP-0I-2-S01-W-C 

3-BP-01-2-S01-W-C-F 

3-BP-01-2-S02-W-C 

3-BP-01-2-S02-W-C-F 

CJ 

l 

£ 

1 

o 

l 

1 

o 

1 

CL 

aa 

• 

3-BP-01-4-S01 - W-C-F 

3-BP-01-4-S02-W-C 

3-BP-01-4-S02-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-2-S01 -W-C 

3-BP-02-2-S01-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-2-S02-W-C 

3-BP-02-2-S02-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-4-S01 - W-C 

3-BP-02-4-S01-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-4-S02-W-C 

3-BP-02-4-S02-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-4-S03-W-C 

3-BP-02-4-S03-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-4-S04-W-C 

3-BP-02-4-S04-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-4-S05-W-C 

3-BP-02-4-S06-W-C 

3-BP-02-4-S06-W-C-F 

3-BP-02-4-S14-W-C 

3-BP-02-4-S14-W-C-F 

3-BP-03-3-S01-W-C 

3-BP-03-3-S0I-W-C-F 

3-BP-03-3-S02-W-C 

3-BP-03-3-S02-W-C-F 

I 3-BP-03-4-P4-W-G 


62 



































































Table A-l. 2003 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations (continued) 


Comments 
















MS/MD 

TDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids 

Hardness 








X 





X 


X 


Alkalinity 








X 





X 


X 


Sulfate 








X 





X 


X 


TDS 






X 


X 

X 


X 


X 


X 


TSS 






X 


X 

X 


X 


X 


X 


Metals 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Project 

Objective 

PI, P2 

P1.P2 

i P1.P2 

PI,P2 

PI, P2 

SG3 

SG3 

SG4 

SG4 

SG4 

SG2 

SG2 

PI, P2, SGI 

P1.P2 

5 

GO 

ci 

CL 

CL 

P1.P2 

Filtered? 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Location 

Pond 4 Discharge 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Clarifier II Settled Solids 

Clarifier II Settled Solids 

Filter Press Decant 

Clarifier 1 Settled Solids 

Clarifier 1 Settled Solids 

Phase 11 Clarifier Influent 

Phase 11 Clarifier Influent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Date 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/10/2003 

7/16/2003 

7/16/2003 

7/16/2003 

7/16/2003 

MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate 

Sample ID 

1 3-BP-03-4-P4-W-G-F 

1 3-BP-03-4-S01 -W-C 

|| 3-BP-03-4-S01-W-C-F 

|| 3-BP-03-4-S02-W-C 

3-BP-03-4-S02-W-C-F 

|| 3-BP-03-4-S06-W-C 

|| 3-BP-03-4-S06-W-C-F 

3-BP-03-4-S10-W-G 

|| 3-BP-03-4-S13-W-C 

3-BP-03-4-S13-W-C-F 

3-BP-03-4-S14-W-C 

3-BP-03-4-S14-W-C-F 

3-BP-04-3-S01-W-C 

3-BP-04-3-S01-W-C-F 

3-BP-04-3-S02W-C 

|| 3-BP-04-3-S02-W-C-F 



63 



























































Table A-2. 2002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Trial 


Moisture 





X 

TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure WET = Waste extraction test 

SPLP 

Metals 





X 

WET 

Metals 





X 

TCLP 

Metals 





X 

Solids 

Metals 





X 

Total 

Solids 





X 

Water 

Metals 

X 

X 

X 

X 


Project 

Objective 

PI, P2 

fS 

O- 

SI 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

SG4 

Filtered? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

<L> 

u_ 

3 

"O 

o 

V 

o 

Urn 

a. 

50 

c 

IE 

CJ 

CQ 

^3 

c 

cn 

C 

o 

♦—» 

'a. 

G 

a> 

u- 

CL 

o 

G 

c 

C/3 

II 

Ou 

-1 

Cl. 

C/3 

Location 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Clarifier II Settled Solids 

Date 

8/21/2002 

8/21/2002 

8/21/2002 

8/21/2002 

8/21/2002 

Sample ID 

MP-6-4-S1-G 

MP-6-4-S1-G-F 

MP-6-4-S2-G 

MP-6-4-S2-G-F 

I MP-6-4-S2-SD 


64 

























Table A-3. 2003 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations 


Comments 




MS/MD 





a 

oo 

2 









MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate TDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids 

Hardness 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 



X 


Alkalinity 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 



X 


Sulfate 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 



X 


TDS 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

X 

X 

X 


TSS 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

X 

X 

X 


Metals 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 



X 

X 

Project 

Objective 

PI, P2, SGI 

(N 

0. 

P1,P2, SGI 

PI, P2 

IDS 

IDS 

SGI 

SGI 

SGI 

IDS 

SGI 

IDS 

IDS 

SGI 

SGI 

SG3 

SG3 

Filtered? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Location 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Phase I Reactor Effluent 

Phase 1 Reactor Effluent 

Phase 11 Reactor Effluent 

Phase II Reactor Effluent 

i 

Phase II Reactor Influent 

Phase II Reactor Influent 

Clarifier II Settled Solids 

Clarifier II Settled Solids 

Filter Press Decant 

Phase I Flash Floe Tank 

Phase II Flash Floe Tank 

Clarifier I Settled Solids 

Clarifier I Settled Solids 

Date 

rn 

o 

o 

CM 

CM 

oo 

8/12/2003 

rn 

o 

o 

CM 

oo 

m 

O 

o 

CM 

CM 

OO 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

8/12/2003 

Sample ID 

|| 3-BP-08-2-S01 -W-C 

|| 3-BP-08-2-S01-W-C-F 

3-BP-08-2-S02-W-C 

3-BP-08-2-S02-W-C-F 

|| 3-BP-08-2-S03-W-C 

|| 3-BP-08-2-S03-W-C-F 

3-BP-08-2-S04-W-C 

3-BP-08-2-S04-W-C-F 

3-BP-08-2-S05-W-C 

|| 3-BP-08-2-S05-W-C-F 

3-BP-08-2-S06-W-C 

3-BP-08-2-S06-W-C-F 

3-BP-08-2-S10-W-G 

3-BP-08-2-S13-W-G 

3-BP-08-2-S14-W-G 

3-BP-08-2-S16-W-C 

3-BP-08-2-S16-W-C-F 



65 























































Table A-4. 2002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations 


Comments 











MS/MD 






MS/MD 


MS/MD 





MS/MD 




MS/MD 







Total 

Solids 






























X 

X 




Alkalinity 





X 


X 


X 


X 






X 


X 






X 


X 








Sulfate 





X 


X 


X 


X 






X 


X 






X 


X 








TDS 





X 


X 


X 


X 






X 


X 






X 


X 








TSS 





X 


X 


X 


X 






X 


X 






X 


X 



X 

X 




Metals 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 



X 

X 

X 

Project 

Objective 

<N 

a. 

£ 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

Id ‘Id 

rn 

o 

00 

of 

a. 

SI 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

fN 

Cl. 

Qu 

PI, P2 

Ou 

PI, P2 

tN 

a. 

a. 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

c*~) 

o 

cn 

of 

a. 

SI 

PI, P2 

CM 

a. 

SI 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

CM 

a. 

SI 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

Filtered? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

- 1 - 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Location 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Phase I reactor effluent 

Phase 1 reactor effluent 

Phase II reactor effluent 

Date 

7/18/2002 

7/18/2002 

7/18/2002 

7/18/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 j 

8/13/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

Q 

a 

E 

99 

Cfl 

BP-01-4-S0I-W-C 

BP-01-4-S01 -W-C-F 

BP-0I-4-S02-W-C 

BP-01-4-S02-W-C-F 

BP-02-2-S01-W-C 

BP-02-2-S01-W-C-F 

BP-02-2-S02-W-C 

BP-02-2-S02-W-C-F 

BP-02-4-S01-W-C 

BP-02-4-S0I -W-C-F 

BP-02-4-S02-W-C 

BP-02-4-S02-W-C-F 

BP-03-2-S01-W-C 

BP-03-2-S01-W-C-F 

BP-03-2-S02-W-C 

BP-03-2-S02-W-C-F 

BP-04-4-S01 - W-C 

BP-04-4-S01-W-C-F 

BP-04-4-S02-W-C 

BP-04-4-S02-W-C-F 

BP-05-2-S01-W-C 

BP-05-2-S01-W-C-F 

BP-05-2-S02-W-C 

BP-05-2-S02-W-C-F 

BP-06-2-S01 - W-C 

BP-06-2-S01 -W-C-F 

BP-06-2-S02-W-C 

BP-06-2-S02-W-C-F 

BP-06-2-S02-W-F 

BP-06-2-S02-W-1 

BP-06-2-S02-W-2 

BP-06-2-S03-W-C 

BP-06-2-S03-W-C-F 

BP-06-2-S04-W-C 


66 





































































Table A-4. 2002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued) 


Comments 



MS/MD 















MS/MD 









MS/MD 



MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate TDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids 

Total 

Solids 




X 

X 



X 

X 





















Alkalinity 















X 


X 







X 


X 




Sulfate 















X 


X 







X 


X 




TDS 















X 


X 







X 


X 




TSS 




X 

X 



X 

X 






X 


X 







X 


X 




Metals 

X 

X 

X 



X 

X 



X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Project 

Objective 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SG1, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

SGI, SG2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

<N 

Cu 

CL 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

<N 

CL 

Cu 

SG2, SG4 

PI, P2 

Csl 

CL 

CL 

PI, P2 

CNl 

CL 

K. 

PI, P2, SG3 

CL 

CL 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

QA/QC 

QA/QC 

Filtered? 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Location 

Phase II reactor effluent 

Phase II reactor influent 

Phase II reactor influent 

Phase II reactor influent 

Phase II reactor influent 

Pit Clarifier Influent 

Pit Clarifier Influent 

Pit Clarifier Influent 

Pit Clarifier Influent 

Sludge Tank Overflow 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Filter Press Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Field Blank 

Equipment Rinseate 

Date 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/20/2002 

8/22/2002 

8/22/2002 

8/22/2002 

8/22/2002 

8/27/2002 

8/27/2002 

8/27/2002 

8/27/2002 

8/27/2002 

8/29/2002 

8/29/2002 

8/29/2002 

8/29/2002 

9/4/2002 

9/4/2002 

9/4/2002 

9/4/2002 

9/4/2002 

9/4/2002 

Sample ID 

|| BP-06-2-S04-W-C-F 

BP-06-2-S05-W-C 

BP-06-2-S05-W-C-F 

|| BP-06-2-S05-W-1 

|| BP-06-2-S05-W-2 

BP-06-2-S07-W-C 

|| BP-06-2-S07-W-C-F 

|| BP-06-2-S07-W-1 

BP-06-2-S07-W-2 

BP-06-2-S11-W-C 

|| BP-06-4-S01-W-C 

BP-06-4-S01 -W-C-F 

|1 BP-06-4-S02-W-C 

BP-06-4-S02-W-C-F 

BP-07-2-S01-W-C 

BP-07-2-S01-W-C-F 

| BP-07-2-S02-W-C 

BP-07-2-S02-W-C-F 

BP-07-2-S12-W-G 

BP-07-4-S01-W-C 

BP-07-4-S01-W-C-F 

BP-07-4-S02-W-C 

BP-07-4-S02-W-C-F 

|| BP-08-3-S01-W-C 

BP-08-3-S01-W-C-F 

BP-08-3-S02-W-C 

BP-08-3-S02-W-C-F 

1 BP-08-3-FB 

I BP-08-3-ER-F 


67 





























































Table A-4. 2002 Sample Register for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued) 



68 























Table A-5. 2002 Sample Register for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 


Comments 



MS/MD 













MS/MD 



MS/MD 


MS/MD 













MS/MD 

Alkalinity 





X 


X 










X 


X 













X 


X 

Sulfate 





X 


X 










X 


X 













X 


X 

TDS 





X 


X 


X 








X 


X 




X 









X 


X 

SS.L 





X 


X 


X 


X 

X 





X 


X 


X 


X 




X 





X 


X 

Metals 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 



X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Project 

Objective 

Csl 

0- 

K. 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

O. 

51 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

P1.P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

SGI 

SGI 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

SGI 

SGI 

SG2, SG4 

P1,P2 

PL P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

PI, P2 

P1,P2, SG3 

Filtered? 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Location 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

c 

o 

3 

E 

w 

u. 

0 J 

LZ 

&£j 

CZ 

CQ 

< 

c 

<u 

3 

E 

w 

u. 

O 

iZ 

u 

O3 

CQ 

< 

All Bag Filter Influent 

C 

o 

3 

E 

UJ 

% 

W— 

<V 

— 

oc 

« 

CO 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

All Bag Filter Influent 

All Bag Filter Influent 

All Bag Filter Effluent 

All Bag Filter Effluent 

Cell 1 

Cell 2 

Bag filter #1 Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Date 

7/18/2002 

7/18/2002 

7/18/2002 

7/18/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/23/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/25/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

7/30/2002 

8/1/2002 

8/1/2002 

8/1/2002 

8/1/2002 

8/6/2002 

8/6/2002 

8/6/2002 

Sample ID 

1 AL-01-4-S0I-W-C 

AL-01-4-S01 -W-C-F 

AL-01-4-S02-W-C 

AL-01-4-S02- W-C-F 

AL-02-2-S01-W-C 

AL-02-2-S01-W-C-F 

AL-02-2-S02-W-C 

AL-02-2-S02-W-C-F 

AL-02-2-S04-W-C 

AL-02-2-S04-W-C-F 

U 

1 

1 

C3 

C/3 

i 

<N 

i 

(N 

O 

i 

pJ 

< 

u 

1 

£ 

X> 

C/3 

i 

Csl 

O 

i 

< 

AL-02-4-S0I-W-C 

AL-02-4-S01-W-C-F 

AL-02-4-S02-W-C 

AL-02-4-S02-W-C-F 

AL-03-2-S01-W-C 

AL-03-2-S01-W-C-F 

AL-03-2-S02-W-C 

AL-03-2-S02-W-C-F 

AL-03-2-S3C-W-C 

AL-03-2-S3C-W-C-F 

AL-03-2-S04-W-C 

I AL-03-2-S04-W-C-F 

AL-03-2-S05-W-C 

AL-03-2-S06-W-C 

AL-03-2-S11B-W-C 

AL-03-4-S01-W-C 

AL-03-4-S01-W-C-F 

AL-03-4-S02-W-C 

AL-03-4-S02-W-C-F 

AL-04-2-S01 - W-C 

AL-04-2-S01-W-C-F 

1 AL-04-2-S02-W-C 


69 










































































Table A-5. 2002 Sample Register for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System (continued) 


Comments 









MS/MD 

MS/MD 








MS/MD = Matrix spike/matrix duplicate TDS = Total dissolved solids TSS = Total suspended solids 

Alkalinity 










X 


X 






Sulfate 










X 


X 






TDS 


X 








X 


X 



X 



TSS 


X 


X 

X 





X 


X 


X 

X 


X 

Metals 

X 

X 

X 



X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


X 

X 


Project 

Objective 

PI, P2 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

PI, P2 

Id ‘Id 

PI, P2 

PI, P2 

PI, P2, SG3 

Q- 

0. 

PI, P2, SG3 

P1.P2 

IDS 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

SG2, SG4 

Filtered? 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Location 

Effluent 

All Bag Filter Effluent 

All Bag Filter Effluent 

All Bag Filter Influent 

Bag filter#! Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

Influent 

Influent 

Effluent 

Effluent 

All Bag Filter Influent 

All Bag Filter Effluent 

All Bag Filter Effluent 

Bag filter #1 Effluent 

Date 

8/6/2002 

8/6/2002 

8/6/2002 

<N 

O 

o 

'O 

oo 

8/6/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/8/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 

8/13/2002 

<N 

O 

O 

oo 

Sample ID 

AL-04-2-S02-W-C-F 

AL-04-2-S04-W-C 

AL-04-2-S04-W-C-F 

AL-04-2-S11 a-W-C 

U 

1 

£ 

1 

X> 

c/p 

rs 

■4 

O 

1 

< 

U 

£ 

1 

© 

CO 

1 

1 

o 

1 

< 

AL-04-4-S01-W-C-F 

AL-04-4-S02-W-C 

AL-04-4-S02-W-C-F 

AL-05-2-S01-W-C 

AL-05-2-S01 -W-C-F 

AL-05-2-S02-W-C 

AL-05-2-S02-W-C-F 

AL-05-2-S03C-W-C 

AL-05-2-S04-W-C 

AL-05-2-S04-W-C-F 

1 AL-05-2-SI1B-W-C 



70 




































































APPENDIX B 

DATA USED TO EVALUATE PROJECT PRIMARY OBJECTIVES 


71 



Table B-l. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations 


Sample Number 1 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

Influent 

Concentration 

(d£/L) 

Effluent 

Concentration j 

<w^l> i 

4-Day Average Effluent | 
Concentration 
(dg/L) 

3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

107,000 

875 


3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

105,000 

1,090 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

114,000 

511 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

119,000 

584 

765 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

107,000 

193 

595 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

98,600 

575 

466 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

104.000 

604 

489 

3-BP-01-2-S0X-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

3,430 

8 


3-BP-01-4-S0X-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

3,310 

10.8 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

3,410 

7.1 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

3,470 

9.7 

8.9 

3-BP-03-3-SOX-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

2,970 

3.6 

7.8 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

2,810 

1.8U 

5.6 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

3,250 

2.9 

4.5 

3-BP-01-2-S0X-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

16.4 

0.21U 


3-BP-01 -4-SOX-W -C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

15.5 

0.21U 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

46.3 

0.16U 


3-BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

45.7 

0.16U 

NC 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

23.2 

0.16U 

NC 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

22.6 

0.16U 

NC 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

13.2 

0.21U 

NC 

3-BP-01 -2-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

299 

2.4 


3-BP-01-4-S0X-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

293 

2.1 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

629 

1.3 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

327 

0.67 

1.6 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

280 

1.5 

1.4 

3-BP-03-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

266 

11.6 

3.8 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

291 

1.7 

3.9 

3-BP-01 -2-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

536 

5.4 


3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

526 

3.6 


3-BP-02-2-SOX-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

539 

2.1 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

549 

1.9U 

3.3 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

476 

1.9U 

2.4 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

434 

1.9U 

2.0 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

454 

4.7 

2.6 

3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

392,000 

5.7 


3-BP-01-4-S0X-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

456,000 

350 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

463,000 

336 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

485,000 

221 

228 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

433,000 

92.9 

250 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

421,000 

129 

195 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

545,000 

99.9 

136 


1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 

pg/L - Micrograms per liter NC - Not calculated U - Non-detect 


72 




















































































Table B-1. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations (continued) 


Sample Number 1 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

- 1 - 

Influent Effluent 

Concentration Concentration 

^g /L >(Hg /L ) 

4-Day Average Effluent |j 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

8.3 

1.4U 


3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

10 

1.4U 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

4.4 

0.9U 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

2.3 

0.9U 

1.2 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

8.8 

0.9U 

1.0 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

0.9U 

0.9U 

0.9 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

8.7 

4.5 

1.8 

3-BP-01-2-S0X-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

2,480 

17.3 


3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

2,500 

20.4 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

2,670 

47.1 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

2,760 

41.8 

31.7 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

2,630 

113 

55.6 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

2,410 

68.8 

67.7 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

2,470 

19.3 

60.7 

3-BP-01 -2-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.6U 

2.6U 


3-BP-01-4-S0X-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.6U 

2.6U 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

26.7 

1.8U 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

29.4 

1.8U 

2.2 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

32.3 

1.8U 

2.0 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

20 

1.8U 

1.8 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.6U 

2.6U 

2.0 

3-BP-01-2-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

536 

12.1 


3-BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

6/24/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

539 

7.7 


3-BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/1/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

559 

3.5 


3-BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/3/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

583 

2.6 

6.5 

3-BP-03-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/9/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

533 

7.6 

5.4 

3-BP-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/10/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

490 

3.1 

4.2 

3-BP-04-3-S0X-W-C-F 

7/16/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

524 

2.7 

4.0 

1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 
pg/L - Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect 


73 



































































Table B-2. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations 


Sample Number 1 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

4-Day Average Effluent 
Concentration 
(HS/L) 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Aluminum 

371,000 

2,200 


BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

354,000 

183 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

326,000 

1,140 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

330,000 

1,690 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

356,000 

1,590 

1,151 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

361,000 

2,860 

1,820 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

355,000 

1,040 

1,795 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

384,000 

785 

1,569 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

379,000 

370 

1,264 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

435,000 

532 

562 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

358,000 

498 

467 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

458,000 

562 

531 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

486,000 

1,090 

671 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Arsenic 

2,930 

7.7 


BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

2.270 

4.8 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

2,090 

9.3 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

1,730 

9.8 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

1,970 

11.8 

8.9 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

1,700 

7.4 

9.6 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

1,360 

10.2 

9.8 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

1,330 

9.6 

9.8 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

1,890 

5.9 

8.3 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

2,970 

8.1 

8.5 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

1,340 

8.5 

8.0 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

3,480 

8.5 

7.8 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

4,050 

10.1 

8.8 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Cadmium 

55.6 

0.35 


BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

52.1 

0.3U 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

48.8 

0.5 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

47.9 

0.9 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

50.0 

0.5 

0.6 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

50.7 

0.5 

0.6 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

51.6 

0.8 

0.7 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

52.8 

1.3 

0.8 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

53.9 

0.8 

0.9 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

60.0 

0.8 

0.9 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

51.5 

1.0 

1.0 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

63.6 

0.7 

0.8 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

68.3 

0.7 

0.8 

1 - For the influent sample, X in the samp 
pg/L - Micrograms per liter 

e number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 

U - Non-detect 


74 

































































Table B-2. Data L sed to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued) 


Sample Number 1 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

Influent 

Concentration 

(HS/L) 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

4-Day Average Effluent 
Concentration 
(iig/L) 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Chromium 

1,000 

3.9 


BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

807 

1.6 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

760 

2.8 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

738 

2.4 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

807 

2.6 

2.4 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

779 

1.7 

2.4 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

729 

46.3 

13.3 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

785 

2.9 

13.4 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

819 

2.0 

13.2 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

1,030 

2.0 

13.3 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

742 

2.1 

2.3 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

1,170 

1.4 

1.9 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

1,240 

2.4 

2.0 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Copper 

2,210 

5.8 


BP-01-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,350 

3.7 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,150 

7.3 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,110 

10.2 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,300 

5.6 

6.7 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,260 

8.6 

7.9 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,180 

12.8 

9.3 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,350 

10.2 

9.3 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,330 

6.9 

9.6 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,660 

5.7 

8.9 

BP-07-2-SOX-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,240 

9.2 

8.0 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,850 

8.5 

7.6 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

2,990 

10.1 

8.4 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Iron 

553,000 

38.4 


BP-01-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

466,000 

39.6 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

414,000 

36.4 


BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

435,000 

1.9U 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

485,000 

110 

47.0 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

398.000 

20.2 

42.1 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

336,000 

243 

93.8 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

359,000 

3.8U 

94.3 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

399,000 

8.8 

69.0 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

541,000 

30.5 

71.5 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

357,000 

3.8U 

11.7 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

605,000 

44.0 

21.8 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

653,000 

3.8U 

20.5 

1 - For the influent sample, X in the samp 
pg/L - Micrograms per liter 

e number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 

U - Non-detect 


75 





























































Table B-2. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued) 


Sample Number 1 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

4-Day Average Effluent 1 

Concentration 

(WJ/L) 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Lead 

1.7 

4.4 


BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

3.9 

1.2U 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

1.2U 

1.2U 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

9.5 

2.5 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

9.0 

1.2U 

1.5 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

7.7 

1.2U 

1.5 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

12.2 

1.4U 

1.6 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

6.4 

3.6 

1.9 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

6.9 

1.4U 

1.9 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

11.8 

1.4U 

2.0 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

8.0 

3.3 

2.4 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

10.2 

1.4U 

1.9 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

10.8 

1.8 

2.0 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Nickel 

6,490 

25 


BP-01-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

6,860 

17.1 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

6,420 

31.2 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

5,980 

17.2 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

6,540 

21.9 

21.9 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

6,600 

7.1 

19.4 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

6,490 

48.0 

23.6 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

7,080 

39.0 

29.0 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

7,040 

55.3 

37.4 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

7,890 

43.0 

46.3 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

6,720 

50.9 

47.1 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

8,430 

49.8 

49.8 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

8,770 

38.9 

45.7 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.6U 

2.6U 


BP-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

10.4 

4.0 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

4.6 

3.7 


BP-02-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

5.5 

5.3 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.5U 

2.5U 

3.9 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.5U 

5.3 

4.2 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.2U 

3.7 

4.2 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.2U 

2.2U 

3.4 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.2U 

7.3 

4.6 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.2U 

2.2U 

3.9 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.2U 

2.9 

3.7 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

14.5 

4.0 

4.1 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.2U 

3.5 

3.2 


1 - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 
pg/L- Micrograms per liter_U - Non-detect 


76 






































































Table B-2. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations (continued) 


Sample Number' 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

4-Day Average Effluent 
Concentration 
(Hg/L) 

3-BP-08-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/12/2003 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,420 

10.4 


BP-01 -4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,320 

8.3 


BP-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,280 

25.1 


BP-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,250 

9.7 


BP-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,370 

16.8 

15.0 

BP-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,370 

11.8 

15.9 

BP-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,440 

25.4 

15.9 

BP-05-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/15/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,520 

17.6 

17.9 

BP-06-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/20/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,500 

15.2 

17.5 

BP-06-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/22/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,650 

38.4 

24.2 

BP-07-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/27/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,410 

19.4 

22.7 

BP-07-4-SX-W-C-F 

8/29/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,760 

21.5 

23.6 

BP-08-3-SX-W-C-F 

9/4/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

1,810 

30.7 

27.5 

1 - For the influent sample, X in the samp 
pg/L - Micrograms per liter 

e number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 


77 


































Table B-3. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment System 


Sample Number 1 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

Influent 

Concentration 

(MB/L) 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

4-Day Average Effluent 
Concentration 
(Hg/L) 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

32,200 

639 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

31,700 

160 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

31,900 

177 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

33,600 

254 

308 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

31,400 

219 

203 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

31,600 

210 

215 

AL-05-2-SX W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

32,600 

160 

211 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Aluminum 

30,900 

185 

194 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

545 

12.9 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

526 

5.1 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

485 

3.8 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

510 

5.8 

6.9 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

495 

6.7 

5.4 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

533 

3.2 

4.9 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

544 

2.6 

4.6 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Arsenic 

516 

6.6 

4.8 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.3U 

0.7 


AL-02-2-S0X-W -C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.3U 

0.3U 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.3U 

0.5 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.3U 

0.3U 

0.4 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.3U 

0.4 

0.4 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.3U 

0.3U 

0.4 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.3U 

0.3 

0.3 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Cadmium 

0.29U 

0.3U 

0.3 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

23.5 

3.8 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

19.5 

1.5 


AL-02-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

19.5 

1.9 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

19.5 

3.3 

2.6 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

18.7 

2.0 

2.2 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

18.9 

1.6 

2.2 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

18.3 

2.5 

2.4 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Chromium 

16.2 

1.4 

1.9 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

11.5 

7.7 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

9.2 

3.1 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

13.1 

4.3 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

14.0 

3.6 

4.7 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

11.9 

8.6 

4.9 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

16.1 

4.1 

5.2 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

15.8 

6.2 

5.6 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Copper 

16.3 

6.1 

6.3 


' - For the influent sample, X in the sample number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 


- Micrograms per liter U - Non-detect 


78 













































































Table B-3. Data Used to Evaluate Project Objectives for the Semi-Passive Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment System (continued) 


Sample Number 1 

Sample 

Date 

Composite 
or Grab? 

Analyte 

Influent 

Concentration 

(Hg/L) 

Effluent 

Concentration 

(Mg/L) 

4-Day Average Effluent 
Concentration 
(MB/L) 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

373,000 

241 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

365,000 

24.2 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

375,000 

1.9U 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

394,000 

463 

183 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

425,000 

27.7 

129 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

378,000 

320 

203 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

460,000 

17.2 

183 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Iron 

360,000 

88.1 

1.5 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

5.7 

1.2U 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

2.7 

1.2U 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

3.9 

1.2U 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

5.1 

1.2U 

1.2 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

6.3 

2.6 

1.6 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

5.7 

1.2U 

1.6 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

5.3 

3.3 

2.1 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Lead 

5.7 

1.4U 

2.1 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,690 

47.2 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,680 

15.7 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,580 

14.2 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,670 

22.4 

24.9 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,570 

20.1 

18.1 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,610 

20.4 

19.3 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,650 

20.4 

20.8 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Nickel 

1,600 

20.4 

20.3 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

4.0 

2.5U 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

7.0 

2.5U 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

3.4 

3.5 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.5 

2.5U 

2.8 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.5 

2.5U 

2.8 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.5 

2.5U 

2.8 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.5 

6.3 

3.5 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Selenium 

2.2 

3.6 

3.7 

AL-01-4-SOX-W-C-F 

7/18/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

353.0 

13.7 


AL-02-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/23/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

352.0 

10.3 


AL-02-4-S0X-W-C-F 

7/25/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

350.0 

6.2 


AL-03-2-S0X-W-C-F 

7/30/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

360.0 

9.6 

10.0 

AL-03-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/1/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

351.0 

12.2 

9.6 

AL-04-2-S0X-W-C-F 

8/6/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

369.0 

19.0 

11.8 

AL-04-4-S0X-W-C-F 

8/8/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

361.0 

9.3 

12.5 

AL-05-2-SX-W-C-F 

8/13/2002 

Composite 

Zinc 

353.0 

33.2 

18.4 

1 - For the influent sample, ) 
pg/L - Micrograms pe 

< in the sample number = 1; for the effluent sample, X=2 
r liter U - Non-detect 


79 









































































Table B-4. Statistical Summary of Active Lime Treatment System, Monophasic Operations Data 


Analyte 

Minimum 

Concentration 

teg/y 

Maximum 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Mean 

Concentration 

(Hg/y 

Median 

Concentration 

itfgy 

Standard 

Deviation 

Coefficient of 
Variation 

(%) 

Influent 

Aluminum 

98,600 

119,000 

107,800 

107,000 

6,734 

6 

Arsenic 

2,810 

3,470 

3,235 

3,310 

252 

8 

Cadmium 

13.2 

46.3 

26.1 

22.6 

14.1 

54 

Chromium 

266 

629 

341 

293 

128 

38 

Copper 

434 

549 

502 

526 

46.4 

9 

Iron 

392,000 

545,000 

456,428 

456,000 

49,429 

11 

Lead 

2.3 

10.0 

7.1 

8.5 

3.0 

43 

Nickel 

2,410 

2,760 

2,560 

2,500 

128 

5 

Selenium 

20.0 

32.3 

27.1 

28.0 

5.3 

19 

Zinc 

490 

583 

538 

536 

28.9 

5 

Effluent 

Aluminum 

103 

1,090 

633 

584 

284 

45 

Arsenic 

1.8 

10.8 

6.27 

7.10 

3.52 

56 

Cadmium 

U 

U 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Chromium 

0.67 

11.6 

3.04 

1.70 

3.82 

126 

Copper 

1.9 

5.4 

3.07 

2.10 

1.50 

49 

Iron 

5.7 

350 

176 

129 

130 

74 

Lead 

0.9 

4.5 

1.56 

0.90 

1.32 

85 

Nickel 

17.3 

113 

46.8 

41.8 

34.7 

74 

Selenium 

1.8 

2.6 

2.14 

1.80 

0.428 

20 

Zinc 

2.6 

12.1 

5.61 

3.50 

3.62 

65 

4-Dav Average Effluent 

Aluminum 

466 

765 

579 

542 

136 

24 

Arsenic 

4.5 

8.9 

6.69 

6.68 

2.02 

30 

Cadmium 

U 

U 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Chromium 

1.4 

3.9 

2.66 

2.69 

1.34 

50 

Copper 

2.0 

3.3 

2.54 

2.49 

0.543 

21 

Iron 

136 

250 

202 

211 

49.8 

25 

Lead 

0.9 

1.8 

1.22 

1.09 

0.401 

33 

Nickel 

31.7 

67.7 

53.9 

58.2 

15.6 

29 

Selenium 

1.8 

2.2 

2.00 

2.00 

0.163 

8 

Zinc 

4.0 

6.5 

5.01 

4.78 

1.15 

23 

% - Percent pg/L - Micrograms per liter NA - Not applicable 

U - Not detected (all effluent samples were non-detect for cadmium) 


80 















































































Table B-5. Statistical Summary of Active Lime Treatment System, Biphasic Operations Data 


Analyte 

Minimum 

Concentration 

(W?/L) 

Maximum 

Concentration 

(Pg /L ) 

Mean 

Concentration 

(Pg /L ) 

Median 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Coefficient of 
Variation 

(%) 

Influent 




Aluminum 

326,000 

486,000 

381,000 

361,000 

48,792 

13 

Arsenic 

1,330 

4,050 

2,239 

1,970 

866 

39 

Cadmium 

47.9 

68.3 

54 

52 

6.1 

11 

Chromium 

729 

1,240 

877 

807 

173 

20 

Copper 

2,110 

2,990 

2,383 

2,300 

275 

12 

Iron 

336,000 

653,000 

461,615 

435,000 

100,251 

22 

Lead 

1.7 

12.2 

8.2 

8.5 

3.1 

38 

Nickel 

5,980 

8,770 

7,024 

6,720 

833 

12 

Selenium 

4.6 

14.5 

8.8 

8.0 

4.6 

53 

Zinc 

1,250 

1,810 

1,469 

1,420 

175 

12 

Effluent 

Aluminum 

183 

2,860 

1,118 

1,040 

782 

70 

Arsenic 

4.8 

11.8 

8.59 

8.50 

1.88 

22 

Cadmium 

0.3 

1.3 

0.71 

0.78 

0.304 

43 

Chromium 

1.4 

46.3 

5.70 

2.40 

12.2 

214 

Copper 

3.7 

12.8 

8.05 

8.50 

2.50 

31 

Iron 

1.9 

243 

44.9 

30.5 

66.2 

147 

Lead 

1.2 

4.4 

2.00 

1.40 

1.09 

55 

Nickel 

7.1 

55.3 

34.2 

38.9 

15.4 

45 

Selenium 

2.2 

7.3 

3.78 

3.70 

1.47 

39 

Zinc 

8.3 

38.4 

19.3 

17.6 

8.87 

46 

4-Dav Average Effluent 

Aluminum 

396 

1,820 

971 

869 

481 

50 

Arsenic 

8.0 

9.8 

8.82 

8.80 

0.760 

9 

Cadmium 

0.6 

1.0 

0.77 

0.78 

0.162 

21 

Chromium 

1.9 

13.4 

7.11 

2.38 

5.86 

83 

Copper 

6.7 

9.6 

8.41 

8.38 

0.957 

11 

Iron 

11.7 

94.3 

52.4 

47.0 

31.3 

60 

Lead 

1.5 

2.4 

1.84 

1.88 

0.284 

15 

Nickel 

19.4 

49.8 

35.5 

37.4 

12.2 

34 

Selenium 

3.2 

4.6 

3.90 

3.88 

0.447 

11 

Zinc 

15.0 

27.5 

20.0 

17.9 

4.52 

23 

% - Percent 

^jrg/^Micrograms per liter 





81 












































































Table B-6. Statistical Summary of Alkaline Lagoon Lime Treatment System Data 


Analyte 

Minimum 

Concentration 

0*g/L) 

Maximum 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Mean 

Concentration 

(Pg/L) 

Median 

Concentration 

(Mg^) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Coefficient of 
Variation 

(%) 

Influent 

Aluminum 

30,900 

33,600 

31,988 

31,800 

827 

3 

Arsenic 

485 

545 

519 

521 

21.9 

4 

Cadmium 

U 

U 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Chromium 

16.2 

23.5 

19.3 

19.2 

2.0 

10 

Copper 

9.2 

16.3 

13.5 

13.6 

2.5 

19 

Iron 

360,000 

460,000 

391,250 

376,500 

34,458 

9 

Lead 

2.7 

6.3 

5.1 

5.5 

1.2 

24 

Nickel 

1,570 

1,690 

1,631 

1,630 

47.0 

3 

Selenium 

2.2 

7.0 

3.3 

2.5 

1.6 

48 

Zinc 

350 

369 

356 

353 

6.5 

2 

Effluent 

Aluminum 

160 

639 

251 

198 

160 

64 

Arsenic 

2.6 

12.9 

5.84 

5.45 

3.24 

55 

Cadmium 

0.3 

0.7 

0.38 

0.33 

0.131 

34 

Chromium 

1.4 

3.8 

2.25 

1.95 

0.883 

39 

Copper 

3.1 

8.6 

5.46 

5.2 

2.00 

37 

Iron 

1.9 

463 

148 

57.9 

173 

117 

Lead 

1.2 

3.3 

1.66 

1.20 

0.819 

49 

Nickel 

14.2 

47.2 

22.6 

20.4 

10.3 

46 

Selenium 

2.5 

6.3 

3.24 

2.50 

1.33 

41 

Zinc 

6.2 

33.2 

14.2 

11.3 

8.56 

60 

4-Day Average Effluent 

Aluminum 

194 

308 

226 

211 

46.4 

21 

Arsenic 

4.6 

6.9 

5.30 

4.88 

0.941 

18 

Cadmium 

0.3 

0.4 

0.36 

0.37 

0.049 

14 

Chromium 

1.9 

2.6 

2.25 

2.20 

0.274 

12 

Copper 

4.7 

6.3 

5.32 

5.15 

0.628 

12 

Iron 

1.5 

203 

140 

183 

82.1 

59 

Lead 

1.2 

2.1 

1.70 

1.55 

0.393 

23 

Nickel 

18.1 

24.9 

20.7 

20.3 

2.57 

12 

Selenium 

2.8 

3.7 

3.09 

2.75 

0.469 

15 

Zinc 

9.6 

18.4 

12.5 

11.8 

3.56 

29 

% - Percent pg/L - Microgram per liter NA - Not applicable 

U - Not detected (all influent samples were non-detect for cadmium) 


82 



























































































APPENDIX C 

DETAILED COST ELEMENT SPREADSHEETS 


83 




Table C-l. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

I 

Site Preparation 






Design (20% of capital cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$140,884.83 

$140,884.83 


Construction Management (15% of capital cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$105,663.62 

$105,663.62 


Project Management (10% of capital cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$70,442.41 

$70,442.41 


Subtotal 




$316,990.86 







II 

Permitting and Regulatory Requirements 






Superfund Site, No Permitting Costs 




$0.00 


Subtotal 




$0.00 







III 

Capital and Equipment 




$704,424.14 

1 

Conventional Lime Treatment System 





a 

Phase 1 Reaction Module: 

1 

lump sum 

$93,361.44 

$93,361.44 


10,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene 
Tank, Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and 
Controller, Lime Injection Pump, Local Control 

Panel, and Electrical Controls and Wiring 





b 

Phase 2 Reaction Module: 

1 

lump sum 

$102,611.28 

$102,611.28 


10,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene 
Tank, Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and 
Controller, Lime Injection Pump, Local Control 

Panel, and Electrical Controls and Wiring 





c 

Phase 2 Clarifier Module: 

1 

lump sum 

$125,267.24 

$125,267.24 


Lamella Type Clarifier with Removable Plates, 

Flash Mix Tank, Flash Mixer, Flocculation Mixer, 
Variable Speed Controller for Flocculation Mixer, 
Local Control Panel, Polymer Dosing System, Solids 
Recycle Pump with Timer, Solids Transfer Pump 
with Timer, and Electrical Controls and Wiring 





d 

Phase 2 Solids Separation: 

1 

lump sum 

$116,662.36 

$116,662.36 


(2) 10,000-Gallon, Polyethylene Tanks with Cone 
Bottoms, Domed Tops, Epoxy Coated Steel Legs, 
20-Cubic Foot Capacity Filter Press with Gasketed 
Recessed Chamber Plates, Set of Clothes, Skid- 
Mounted Air Diaphragm Feed Pumps, Air Blow 

Down Manifold, (3) Pump Repair Kits, and Spare 
Pump 





e 

Lime Slurry> Equipment: 

1 

lump sum 

$19,394.04 

$19,394.04 


8,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene 

Tank with Cone Bottom, Open Top, Access Ladder 
with Safety Cage, Mixer and Mixer Bridge, Lime 
Slurry Mixer, and Electrical Controls with Wiring 





f 

Utility water Storage/Delivery: 

1 

lump sum 

$87,966.28 

$87,966.28 


(3) 15,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced 

Polyethylene Tanks with Cone Bottom, Open Top, 

(1) Access Ladder with Safety Cage, and Utility 

Water Pump System 





g 

Fuel storage: 

1 

lump sum 

$6,150.00 

$6,150.00 


1,000-Gallon Diesel Fuel Storage Tank 





h 

System Assembly 

1 

lump sum 

$116,940.00 

$116,940.00 


Subtotal 




$668,352.64 


84 













































Table C-l. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation (continued) 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

2 

Collection Pumping and Appurtenances 





a 

Capture <6 Route Delta Seep Flows to CUD 




$6,214.00 


Earthwork and Sandbag Coffer Dam 

20 

cubic yard 

$25.00 

$500.00 


Purchase/Place High Density Polyethylene liner 

150 

square feet 

$1.20 

$180.00 


Berkeley 6AL3 Submersible Pump and 3 hp motor 

1 

each 

$2,500.00 

$2,500.00 


Electric and Control Cable 

700 

linear feet 

$3.27 

$2,289.00 


3-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene Pipe 

700 

linear feet 

$0.85 

$595.00 


3-inch Diameter Check Valve 

1 

each 

$150.00 

$150.00 







b 

Route Delta Seep and CUD to System 




$9,448.00 


Berkeley 6AL3 Submersible pump and 3 hp motor 

1 

cubic yard 

$2,500.00 

$2,500.00 


Electric and Control Cable 

1,650 

linear feet 

$3.27 

$5,395.50 


3-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene Pipe 

1,650 

linear feet 

$0.85 

$1,402.50 


3-inch Diameter Check Valve 

1 

each 

$150.00 

$150.00 







c 

Route ADIT/PUD flows to System 




$930.00 


4-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene pipe 

500 

linear feet 

$1.56 

$780.00 


4-inch Diameter Check Valve 

1 

each 

$150.00 

$150.00 


Subtotal 




$16,592.00 







3 

Automation 





a 

Remote Monitoring/Alarm System 




$9,742.50 


Sensaphone SCADA 3000 (control system, logger, 
alarm) 

1 

lump sum 

$2,495.00 

$2,495.00 


Miscellaneous Accessories for SCADA 3000 

1 

lump sum 

$500.00 

$500.00 


Personal Computer 

1 

lump sum 

$2,000.00 

$2,000.00 


Professional Series 900 MHz Data Transceivers 

1 

lump sum 

$1,000.00 

$1,000.00 


Miscellaneous Accessories for Transceivers 

1 

lump sum 

$500.00 

$500.00 


Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$3,247.50 

$3,247.50 







b 

pH Controller System 




$8,242.00 


Pulse Output Controller 

2 

each 

$1,160.00 

$2,320.00 


Electronic Diaphragm Pumps 

4 

each 

$826.00 

$3,304.00 


pH Probe 

4 

each 

$175.00 

$700.00 


pH Cable 

2 

each 

$45.00 

$90.00 


Temperature Sensor 

2 

each 

$155.00 

$310.00 


Temperature Cable 

2 

each 

$45.00 

$90.00 


Accessories (cables, calibration solution) 

1 

lump sum 

$150.00 

$150.00 


Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$1,278.00 

$1,278.00 


Subtotal 




$17,984.50 







4 

Communications 






Motorola 9505 Satellite Phone 

1 

lump sum 

$1,495.00 

$1,495.00 


Subtotal 




$1,495.00 


Total Fixed Cost 




$1,021,415.00 


85 







































































Table C-l. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation (continued) 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

IV 

System Start up and Shakedown 






System Assembly 

160 

hour 

$56.19 

$8,990.40 


Start-up and Shake Down Labor 

160 

hour 

$56.19 

$8,990.40 


Subtotal 




$17,980.80 







V 

Consumables and Rentals 






Lime Consumption (dry weight) 

13.6 

ton 

$366.00 

$4,977.60 


Polymer 

143 

gallon 

$13.64 

$1,950.52 


Personal Protective Equipment 

145 

each 

$7.00 

$1,015.00 


Compressor 

2 

month 

$2,400.00 

$4,800.00 


Heavy Equipment Rental Including Fuel 

2 

month 

$4,000.00 

$8,000.00 


Field Trailer 

2.5 

month 

$700.00 

$1,750.00 


Storage Connex 

60 

month 

$325.00 

$19,500.00 


Subtotal 




$41,993.12 







VI 

Labor 






Field Technicians 

695 

hour 

$56.19 

$39,052.05 


Administrative Support 

42.3 

hour 

$61.16 

$2,587.07 


Project Management 

104 

hour 

$90.00 

$9,360.00 


Engineering 

145 

hour 

$100.00 

$14,500.00 


Program Administrator 

82 

hour 

$100.00 

$8,200.00 


Subtotal 




$73,699.12 







VII 

Utilities 






Generator (125 Kilowatt) 

2 

month 

$3,400.00 

$6,800.00 


Backup Generator (125 Kilowatt) 

2 

month 

$3,400.00 

$6,800.00 


Generator Fuel 

4,630 

gallon 

$1.40 

$6,482.00 


SCADA communication service 

o 

L. 

month 

$75.00 

$150.00 


Satellite Phone Communications 

2 

month 

$50.00 

$100.00 


Portable Toilets 

2 

month 

$325.00 

$650.00 


Subtotal 




$20,982.00 







VIII 

Residual Waste Shipping, Handling and Disposal 






Off-Site Hazardous Sludge Disposal (wet weight) 

62 

ton 

$263.00 

$16,306.00 


Subtotal 




$16306.00 







IX 

Analytical Services 






Total Metals (Effluent Discharge) 

35 

each 

$80.00 

$2,800.00 


Total and Leachable Metals (Waste 

Characterization) 

1 

each 

$280.00 

$280.00 


Subtotal 




$3,080.00 







X 

Maintenance and Modifications 






Major Equipment Replacement 

2 

month 

$4,000.00 

$8,000.00 


Subtotal 




$8,000.00 







XI 

Demobilization 






System Winterization Labor 

320 

hour 

$56.19 

$17,980.80 


Subtotal 




$17,980.80 








Total Variable Cost 




$200,021.84 


86 


































































Table C-l. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Monophasic Operation (continued) 



Description 

Total 


Total 1st Year Cost 

$1,221,436.84 


Total 1st Year Cost/1000-Liters 

$128.05 


Total Variable Cost/1000-Liters 

$20.97 





Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$820,129.00 


Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,404,871.00 


Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost (Present W orth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,821,783.00 

% - Percent MHz - MegaHertz 

CUD - Channel under drain PUD - Pit under drain 

hp - Horsepower SCADA - Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 


87 

















Table C-2. Cost Clement Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

I 

Site Preparation 






Design (20% of capital cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$172,969.44 

$172,969.44 


Construction Management (15% of capital cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$129,727.08 

$129,727.08 


Project Management (10% of capital cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$86,484.72 

$86,484.72 


Subtotal 




$389,181.24 







II 

Permitting and Regulatory 






Superfund Site, No Permitting Costs 




$0.00 


Subtotal 




$ 0.00 







III 

Capital and Equipment 




$864,847.22 

1 

Conventional Lime Treatment System 





a 

Phase 1 Reaction Module: 

1 

lump sum 

$93,361.44 

$93,361.44 


10,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tank, 

Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and Controller, Lime 
Injection Pump, Local Control Panel, and Electrical Controls 
and Wiring 





b 

Phase 1 Clarifier Module: 

1 

lump sum 

$149,133.08 

$149,133.08 


Lamella Type Clarifier with Removable Plates, Flash Mix 
Tank, Flash Mixer, Flocculation Mixer, Variable Speed 
Controller for Flocculation Mixer, Local Control Panel, 
Polymer Dosing System, Solids Transfer Pump with Timer, 
Electrical Controls and Wiring, Spare Gaskets and Plates 





c 

Phase 1 Solids Separation: 

1 

lump sum 

$116,662.36 

$116,662.36 


(2) 10,000-Gallon, Polyethylene Tanks with Cone Bottoms, 
Domed Tops, Epoxy Coated Steel Legs, 20-Cubic Foot 
Capacity Filter Press with Gasketed Recessed Chamber 

Plates, Set of Clothes, Skid-Mounted Air Diaphragm Feed 
Pumps, Air Blow Down Manifold, (3) Pump Repair Kits, 
and Spare Pump 





d 

Phase 2 Reaction Module: 

1 

lump sum 

$102,611.28 

$102,611.28 


10,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tank, 

Mixer and Mixer Bridge, pH Probe and Controller, Lime 
Injection Pump, Local Control Panel, and Electrical Controls 
and Wiring 





e 

Phase 2 Clarifier Module: 

1 

lump sum 

$125,267.24 

$125,267.24 


Lamella Type Clarifier with Removable Plates, Flash Mix 
Tank, Flash Mixer, Flocculation Mixer, Variable Speed 
Controller for Flocculation Mixer, Local Control Panel, 
Polymer Dosing System, Solids Recycle Pump with Timer, 
Solids Transfer Pump with Timer, and Electrical Controls 
and Wiring 




• 

f 

Lime Slurry Equipment: 

1 

lump sum 

$19,394.04 

$19,394.04 


8,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tank with 
Cone Bottom, Open Top, Access Ladder with Safety Cage, 
Mixer and Mixer Bridge, Lime Slurry Mixer, and Electrical 
Controls with Wiring 





g 

Utility Storage/Delivery: 

1 

lump sum 

$87,966.28 

$87,966.28 


(3) 15,000-Gallon Fiberglass Reinforced Polyethylene Tanks 
with Cone Bottom, Open Top, (1) Access Ladder with Safety 
Cage, and Utility Water Pump System 





h 

Fuel Storage: 

1 

lump sum 

$6,150.00 

$6,150.00 


1,000-Gallon Diesel Fuel Storage Tank 





i 

System Assembly 

1 

lump sum 

$116,940.00 

$116,940.00 


Subtotal 




$817,485.72 


88 


















































Table C-2. Cost Clement Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation (continued) 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

2 

Collection Pumping and Appurtenances 





a 

Route Pond H ater to System 




$930.00 


4-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene pipe 

500 

linear feet 

$1.56 

$780.00 


4-mch Diameter Check Valve 

1 

each 

SI 50.00 

$150.00 







b 

Route Phase II Clarifier to Pit Clarifier 




$26,952.00 


Submersible Pump 

2 

each 

$12,000.00 

S24,000.00 


4-inch Diameter High Density Polyethylene pipe 

1.700 

linear feet 

$1.56 

$2,652.00 


4-inch Diameter Check Valve 

2 

each 

$150.00 

$300.00 


Subtotal 




$27,882.00 







3 

Automation 





a 

Remote Monitoring/Alarm System 




$9,742.50 


Sensaphone SCADA 3000 (control system, logger, alarm) 

1 

lump sum 

$2,495.00 

$2,495.00 


Miscellaneous Accessories for SCADA 3000 

1 

lump sum 

$500.00 

$500.00 


Personal Computer 

1 

lump sum 

$2,000.00 

$2,000.00 


Professional Senes 900 MHz Data Transceivers 

1 

lump sum 

$1,000.00 

$1,000.00 


Miscellaneous Accessories for Transceivers 

1 

lump sum 

$500.00 

$500.00 


Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$3,247.50 

$3,247.50 







b 

pH Controller System 




$8,242.00 


Pulse Output Controller 

2 

each 

$1,160.00 

$2,320.00 


Electronic Diaphragm Pumps 

4 

each 

$826.00 

$3,304.00 


pH Probe 

4 

each 

$175.00 

$700.00 


pH Cable 

2 

each 

$45.00 

$90.00 


Temperature Sensor 

2 

each 

$155.00 

$310.00 


Temperature Cable 

2 

each 

$45.00 

$90.00 


Accessories (cables, calibration solution) 

1 

lump sum 

$150.00 

$150.00 


Installation Cost (assumes 50% of equipment cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$1,278.00 

$1,278.00 


Subtotal 




$17,984.50 







4 

Communications 






Motorola 9505 Satellite Phone 

1 

lump sum 

$1,495.00 

$1,495.00 


Subtotal 




$1,495.00 


Total Fixed Cost 




$1,254,028.46 


89 




























































Table C-2. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation (continued) 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

IV 

System Start-up and Shakedown 






System Assembly 

160 

hour 

$70.00 

$11,200.00 


Start up and Shakedown Labor 

160 

hour 

$70.00 

$11,200.00 


Subtotal 




$22,400.00 







V 

Consumables and Rentals 






Fuel 

320 

gallon 

$2.39 

$764.80 


Lime (dry weight) 

49.6 

ton 

$340.00 

$16,864.00 


Polymer 

275 

gallon 

$13.64 

$3,751.00 


Personal Protective Equipment 

1 

lump sum 

$330.00 

$330.00 


Compressor 

2 

month 

$2,400.00 

$4,800.00 


Heavy Equipment Rental Including Fuel 

2 

month 

$4,000.00 

$8,000.00 


Field Trailer 

2 

month 

$800.00 

$1,600.00 


Storage Connex 

60 

month 

$325.00 

$19,500.00 


Subtotal 




$55,609.80 







VI 

Labor 






Field Technicians 

470 

hour 

$70.00 

$32,900.00 


Administrative Support 

40 

hour 

$45.00 

$1,800.00 


Project Management 

104 

hour 

$90.00 

$9,360.00 


Engineering 

145 

hour 

$100.00 

$14,500.00 


Program Administrator 

82 

hour 

$100.00 

$8,200.00 


Subtotal 




$66,760.00 







VII 

Utilities 






Generator (125 Kilowatt) 

2 

month 

$3,400.00 

$6,800.00 


Backup Generator (125 Kilowatt) 

2 

month 

$3,400.00 

$6,800.00 


Generator Fuel 

2,117 

gallon 

$1.40 

$2,963.80 


SCADA communication service 

1 

month 

$75.00 

$75.00 


Satellite Phone Communications 

2 

month 

$50.00 

$100.00 


Portable Toilets 

2 

month 

$325.00 

$650.00 


Subtotal 




$17388.80 







VIII 

Residual Waste Shipping, Handling and Disposal 






Off-site Hazardous Sludge Disposal (wet weight) 

41.1 

ton 

$250.00 

$10,275.00 


Pit Clarifier Clean Out 

0.33 

lump sum 

$30,000.00 

$9,900.00 


Subtotal 




$20,175.00 







IX 

Analytical Services 






Total Metals (Effluent Discharge) 

19 

each 

$80.00 

$1,520.00 


Total and Leachable Metals (Waste Characterization) 

2 

each 

$280.00 

$560.00 


Subtotal 




$2,080.00 







X 

Maintenance and Modifications 






Major Equipment Replacement 

1 

lump sum 

$18,000.00 

$18,000.00 


Subtotal 




$18,000.00 







XI 

Demobilization 






System Winterization Labor 

320 

hour 

$70.00 

$22,400.00 


Subtotal 




$22,400.00 


Total Variable Cost 




$224,813.60 


90 






































































Table C-2. Cost Element Details for the Active Lime Treatment System - Biphasic Operation (continued) 



Description 

Total 


Total 1st Year Cost 

$1,478,842.06 


Total 1st Year Cost/1000-Liters 

SI 11.63 


Total Variable Cost/1000-Liters 

SI 6.97 





Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$921,780.00 


Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

SI,578,998.00 


Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$2,047,585.00 

% - Percent SCADA - Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

MHz - MegaHertz 


91 


















Table C-3. Cost Element Details for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

1 

Site Preparation 






Design (20% of Capital Cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$37,683.05 

$37,683.05 


Construction Management (15% of Capital Cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$28,262.29 

$28,262.29 


Project Management (10% of Capital Cost) 

1 

lump sum 

$18,841.53 

$18,841.53 


Survey and Drafting Services 

1 

lump sum 

$4,025.16 

$4,025.16 


Subtotal 




$88,812.03 







II 

Permitting and Regulatory Costs 






Superfund Site, No Permitting Costs 




$0.00 


Subtotal 




$ 0.00 







Ill 

Capital and Equipment 




$188,415.25 

1 

General Site Work 




$98,572.51 


Lagoon Berm Extension, General Site Grading 

1 

lump sum 

$45,950.87 

$45,950.87 


Lagoon Bottom Liner/Berm and Treatment Pad Liner 

1 

lump sum 

$48,278.30 

$48,278.30 


Lagoon Particle Settling Partitions 

3 

each 

$1,447.78 

$4,343.34 







2 

Collection Systems 




$30,776.23 


Channel Under Drain Pump with Motor 

2 

each 

$3,665.91 

$7,331.83 


Channel Under Drain Collection Tank Level Transducer 

1 

each 

$2,058.25 

$2,058.25 


Channel Under Drain Collection Tank 

1 

each 

$459.93 

$459.93 


Channel Under Drain Magnetic Flow Meter 

1 

each 

$3,534.98 

$3,534.98 


Channel Under Drain Power and Control Wiring 

1 

each 

$17,391.24 

$17,391.24 







3 

Equipment 




$33,896.34 


Reaction Tank 

3 

each 

$1,968.33 

$5,904.98 


Lime Slurry Tanks and Mixer Tank Motors 

2 

each 

$6,415.02 

$12,830.04 


Lime Recirculating Pump 

2 

each 

$1,444.54 

$2,889.08 


Lime Delivery Pumps/Diffusers/Aerator 

2 

each 

$1,639.22 

$3,278.44 


Rotary Vane Compressor 

4 

each 

$789.06 

$3,156.24 


Submersible Pumps 

2 

each 

$848.80 

$1,697.60 


Submersible Dewatering Pump 

1 

each 

$1,259.60 

$1,259.60 


Pacer/Honda Trash Pump and Hoses 

1 

each 

$2,880.36 

$2,880.36 







4 

Electrical 




$3,384.30 


Variable Frequency Drive 

2 

each 

$275.00 

$550.00. 


Distribution Panel 

1 

each 

$500.00 

$500.00 


5 Kilowatt Honda Gas Generator 

1 

each 

$2,334.30 

$2,334.30 







5 

Miscellaneous 




$21,785.87 


Storage Bins Including Lock Box and Wind Tower 

3 

each 

$2,911.82 

$8,735.46 


Constant-Monitoring pH Probes 

2 

each 

$162.00 

$324.00 


Monitoring Equipment 

1 

lump sum 

$11,231.41 

$11,231.41 


Motorola 9505 Satellite Phone 

1 

lump sum 

$1,495.00 

$1,495.00 








Subtotal 




$188,415.25 


Total Fixed Cost 




$277,227.28 


92 



































































Table C-3. Cost Element Details for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System (continued) 



Description 

Quantity 

Unit 

Unit cost 

Subtotal 

IV 

System Start up and Shakedown 






System Assembly 

128 

hour 

$45.36 

$5,806.08 


System Start up and Shakedown Labor 

128 

hour 

$45.36 

$5,806.08 


Subtotal 




$11,612.16 







V 

Consumables and Rentals 






Lime Consumption 

19.4 

ton 

$366.00 

$7,100.40 


Compressor 

4 

month 

$2,400.00 

$9,600.00 


Heavy Equipment Rental Including Fuel 

4 

month 

$1,000.00 

$4,000.00 


Field Trailer (Including Mobilization) 

6 

month 

$466.67 

$2,800.00 


Storage Connex (Including Mobilization) 

36 

month 

$325.00 

$11,700.00 


Solids Collection Fabric-Filter Bags 

6 

each 

$252.52 

$1,515.12 


Health and Safety Equipment Including Personal 

Protective Equipment 

1 

lump sum 

$5,000.00 

$5,000.00 


Subtotal 




$41,715.52 







VI 

Labor 






Field Technicians 

1,280 

hour 

$45.36 

$58,060.80 


Administrative Support 

42 

hour 

$58.38 

$2,451.96 


Project Management 

104 

hour 

$90.00 

$9,360.00 


Engineering 

145 

hour 

$100.00 

$14,500.00 


Program Administration 

82 

hour 

$100.00 

$8,200.00 


Subtotal 




$92,572.76 







VII 

Utilities 






Generator (40 Kilowatt) 

4 

month 

$1,845.00 

$7,380.00 


Backup Generator (25 Kilowatt) 

4 

month 

$1,260.00 

$5,040.00 


Diesel 

1,023 

gallon 

$1.42 

$1,452.66 


Satellite Phone Communications 

2 

month 

$50.00 

$100.00 


Portable Toilets 

6 

month 

$325.00 

$1,950.00 


Subtotal 




$15,922.66 







VIII 

Residual Waste Handling and Disposal 






Non-hazardous Solids Excavation and Off Site Disposal 
(wet weight) 

63 

ton 

$275.00 

$17,325.00 


Subtotal 




$17,325.00 







IX 

Analytical Services 






Total Metals (Effluent Discharge) 

6 

each 

$80.00 

$480.00 


Total and Leachable Metals (Waste Characterization) 

2 

each 

$280.00 

$560.00 


Subtotal 




$1,040.00 







X 

Maintenance and Modifications 






Major Equipment Replacement 

1 

lump sum 

$5,400.00 

$5,400.00 


Subtotal 




$5,400.00 







XI 

Demobilization 






System Winterization Labor 

256 

hour 

$45.36 

$11,612.16 


Subtotal 




$11,612.16 








Total Variable Cost 




$197,200.26 


93 










































































Table C-3. Cost Element Details for the Semi-passive Alkaline Lagoon Treatment System (continued) 



Description 

Total 


Total 1st Year Cost 

$474,427.54 


Total 1st Year Cost/1000-Liters 

$39.54 


Total Variable Cost/1000-Liters 

$16.44 





Cumulative 5-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$808,559.00 


Cumulative 10-Year Total Variable Cost (Present W orth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,385,051.00 


Cumulative 15-Year Total Variable Cost (Present Worth at 7 Percent Rate of Return) 

$1,796,081.00 

% - Percent 


94 










































































EPA 

United States 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 


LC ACQUISITIONS 


0 014 772 332 5 


Office of Research and Development 
National Risk Management 
Research Laboratory 
Cincinnati, OH 45268 

Official Business 
Penalty for Private Use 
$300 

EPA/540/R-05/015 
March 2006 
www.epa.gov 



Recycled/Recyclable 
Printed with vegetable-based ink on 
paper that contains a minimum of 
50% post-consumer fiber content 
processed chlorine free 


• - 

rhtSORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 
EPA 

PERMIT No. G-35 








